Posted on 08/30/2009 10:09:56 AM PDT by 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 courts 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. Clintons 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.
Thats 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
"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.
'Thats pretty incredible, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
"The discussion of book banning may have helped prompt the request for re-argument."
Floyd Brown is a GREAT American!
So you are posting a First Amendment case that may reverse McCain-Feingold as chat? This is front page news!
I would like to see McCain-Feingold completely overturned by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional on the grounds of free speech provisions.
The list, ping
Ping!!!
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.