Supreme Court to Revisit ‘Hillary’ Documentary

The New York Times ^ | August 29, 2009 | ADAM LIPTAK

[Seizethecarp]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will cut short its summer break in early September to hear a new argument in a momentous case that could transform the way political campaigns are conducted.

The case, which arises from a minor political documentary called “Hillary: The Movie,” seemed an oddity when it was first argued in March.

At issue is whether the court should overrule a 1990 decision, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates.

The court’s order calling for re-argument, issued in June, has generated more than 40 friend-of-the-court briefs.

The American Civil Liberties Union and its usual allies are on opposite sides, with the civil rights group fighting shoulder to shoulder with the National Rifle Association to support the corporation that made the film.

The case involves “Hillary: The Movie,” a mix of advocacy journalism and political commentary that is a relentlessly negative look at Mrs. Clinton’s character and career.

The issue was that the McCain-Feingold law bans corporate money being used for electioneering.

At the first Supreme Court argument in March, a government lawyer, answering a hypothetical question, said the government could also make it a crime to distribute books advocating the election or defeat of political candidates so long as they were paid for by corporations and not their political action committees.

That position seemed to astound several of the more conservative justices, and there were gasps in the courtroom.

“That’s pretty incredible,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. The discussion of book banning may have helped prompt the request for re-argument.

In an interview, Mr. Wertheimer seemed reluctant to answer questions about the government regulation of books. Pressed, Mr. Wertheimer finally said, “A campaign document in the form of a book can be banned.”

[Seizethecarp]

NY Times says there was a "discussion of book banning" before SCOTUS in the Hillary Movie case. Sounds to me like the Obama Admin. has asserted a right to political book banning:

"At the first Supreme Court argument in March, a government lawyer, answering a hypothetical question, said the government could also make it a crime to distribute books advocating the election or defeat of political candidates so long as they were paid for by corporations and not their political action committees.

"That position seemed to astound several of the more conservative justices, and there were gasps in the courtroom.

'“That’s pretty incredible,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

"The discussion of book banning may have helped prompt the request for re-argument."

[Kansas58]

Floyd Brown is a GREAT American!

[neverdem]

So you are posting a First Amendment case that may reverse McCain-Feingold as chat? This is front page news!

[Ev Reeman]

I would like to see McCain-Feingold completely overturned by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional on the grounds of free speech provisions.

[Nachum]

The list, ping

[Freedom2specul8]

Ping!!!

[bamahead]

“That’s pretty incredible,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. The discussion of book banning may have helped prompt the request for re-argument.



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)

[a fool in paradise]

Farhrenheit 9-11 was a political ad to get Boosh out of office. After making the case against Bush’s presidency, it ends with the slogan “DO SOMETHING!”

The FEC is a joke. They also let Obama get illegal foreign funds in 2008.

[mainestategop]

Now all they need to do is change the definition of corporation and the government can ban the 1st amendment and control the media.