Skip to comments.Judges Restrict Anti-Clinton Movie Ads
Posted on 01/17/2008 7:23:07 AM PST by xzins
A conservative group must abide by campaign finance laws if it wants to run ads promoting its anti-Hillary Rodham Clinton movie, a federal court ruled Tuesday.
Citizens United had hoped to run the television advertisements in key election states during peak primary season. The court ruling means the group must either keep its ads off the air or attach a disclaimer and disclose its donors.
Lawyers for the group had argued its 90-minute "Hillary: The Movie" was no different from documentaries seen on television news shows "60 Minutes" and "Nova." That prompted skepticism and, at one point, outright laughter from the judges during a hearing last week.
Campaign regulations prohibit corporations and unions from paying for ads that run close to elections and identify candidates. Citizens United argued that the advertisements promoted the movie and should be treated as commercial speech as opposed to advocacy against the Democratic New York senator.
A three-judge panel unanimously disagreed. The film does not address legislative issues and was produced solely "to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world, and that viewers should vote against her," U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth wrote.
A similar issue surfaced in 2004, when Citizens United sought to keep filmmaker Michael Moore from advertising "Fahrenheit 9/11" in the run-up to the presidential election. The Federal Election Commission dismissed the complaint after Moore said he had no plans to run the ads during election season.
Citizens United plans to runs its ads in key primary states during election season. The ads include clips from the movie, including one in which Dick Morris _ a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now a critic of the Clintons _ saying the New York senator is "the closest thing we have in America to a European socialist."
By law, challenges to the campaign finance regulations are considered by a three-judge panel of district and appellate judges in Washington. During last week's hearing, Citizens United drew the most criticism from the panel's two Republican nominees _ Lamberth and Judge A. Raymond Randolph, an appellate judge. U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts was a nominee of President Clinton.
Thank you to John McCain and Russ Feingold
What First Amendment?
Hmm....but Fakenheit 9/11 was under no such restraint?
I love this two sets of rules garbage.
I hope this gets appealed.
Where have I heard that judge’s name before?
‘A conservative group must abide by campaign finance laws if it wants to run ads
Thank you to John McCain and Russ Feingold’
And McCain wonders why Republicans won’t vote for him....(eyes rolling)
McCain/Grahamnesty 08' <= RINO dream ticket
The judges are correct. But the law is wrong. And the Supreme Court was wrong to uphold its Constitutionality.
But none of those things happened, because freedom is slowly becoming a distant memory here ...
Thank you JOhn McCain you butthead RINO
“McWhacked” is dead set agains “waterboarding” and any torture of the enemy.....the KGB laughs at him.
And Jorge Bush and SCOTUS for signing and upholding that turd.
Plenty of links in this chain.
I was thinking the same thing. We have the Congress, President and Supreme Court to blame. They all failed us.
President Bush signed the thing, probably because he knew the Senate would probably override a veto. There were THAT many “moderate” Republicans. McCain was their leader and he opposed any iniative that he didn’t support. His desire for power is as great as Hillary’s.
He was nominated to the federal bench on March 19, 1987 by President Ronald Reagan, and confirmed by the Senate on November 13, 1987
I had the same thought but a google search sheds little light other than he is a conservative judge appointed by Reagan. I thought he played a role in the impeachment but see no evidence.