Posted on 08/08/2013 5:49:52 AM PDT by don-o
Eeeeeeeyew!
That was totally uncalled for.
Simply a show of false concern. The “newsman” Chuck Todd, has to give the appearance of being impartial to keep independents on his, and Mrs. Clinton’s side.
In reality, Chuckie will wet his pants with glee watching a program that will all be deify Mrs. Clinton. Liberal men like Todd count on strong women to show them the way.
What difference does it make? (snicker) NBC is betting on the greater than 50% braindead voting public not caring a whit.
And ya know what Chucky, they’re right!
That about covers it. Thanks for the reminders.
Defeat NBC !!! Red states need a state surcharge on all TV Commercials.
Red states could raise some easy money this way, and defeat the liberal media at the same time.
Giant firewall?? I’t hidden by Gore’s Lock Box.
C’mon- this case was brought as the q was if this movie was part of campaigning. NBC CNN are getting around this?:
Court hears arguments over anti-Hillary Clinton movie
[dang-they don’t have the date-bonrad]
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7166013&page=1
The Supreme Court appeared open to vigorous arguments Tuesday that federal campaign-finance law wrongly limits corporate-funded messages in political elections.
Theodore Olson, representing the producers of a 90-minute movie highly critical of former Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton, told the justices that the First Amendment freedom to participate in the political process “is being smothered by one of the most complicated, expensive and incomprehensible regulatory regimes ever invented.”
Olson specifically protested a provision of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that kept Citizens United, a conservative group that produced the film, from distributing Hillary: The Movie through a video-on-demand program in early 2008.
More significantly, Olson asked the court to reverse long-standing cases allowing government to restrict campaign spending by corporations and unions because of the potentially corruptive aspect of big-money interests.
The justices’ comments, along with their recent pattern of increasingly scrutinizing laws that limit corporate-funded political speech, suggested that Citizens United would prevail. Yet it was not clear how broadly the justices might rule and affect money in elections.
Justice Anthony Kennedy questioned whether, if the majority finds corporate campaign limits do not cover the feature-length movie, “then the whole statute (barring corporate-funded broadcasts) should fall.”
There was no obvious consensus among a majority of the nine justices on the potential loosening of limits on corporate money.
The law at issue bars TV or radio ads financed with corporate or labor union money that refer to a candidate for federal office 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.
Olson contended the movie, produced partly with corporate contributions, differs from the usual 60-second ads that Congress targeted. He characterized it as a documentary about Clinton, now secretary of State.
Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart countered that “the film repeatedly criticizes Hillary Clinton’s character and integrity” and said Congress aimed to curb electioneering regardless of a message’s length.
He noted that the law applies to any “broadcast, cable or satellite communication” before an election.
Chief Justice John Roberts was skeptical of Stewart’s argument. “So if Wal-Mart airs an advertisement that says, ‘We have candidate action figures for sale, come buy them,’ that counts as an electioneering communication?”
Stewart said it could. He also said Congress might be able to bar corporate spending to publish and publicize a campaign book before an election.
The four liberal justices, including David Souter, seemed ready to view the movie as a prohibited campaign ad.
“Doesn’t this one fall into campaign advocacy?” Souter said, referring to a quotation in the movie that says, “ ‘She will lie about anything. She is deceitful. She is ruthless, cunning, dishonest. …’ This sounds to me like campaign advocacy.”
I figured I would change the “warts and all” to “cellulite and all”...seemed more apropos
Effective, but nasty, imagery.
My pick to play Hillary would be...oh, I forget her name...Julianne Moore! She’s a much better typecast actress.
Maybe we could all learn about her being named after Sir Edmund Hillary?
Paragraphs are our friends...
HBO probably won’t touch it.
Nah...that is just political nonsense for the low-info crowd. Hardly worth the time it would take, and take away from some of the more important malfeasance like the Billy Dale Fiasco in the Travel office where his reputation was sullied by the Clintons to get the travel office under the control of their friends Harry and Linda Thomason.
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.