September 9, 2009 3:33 PM

Unplugged: Hillary Movie Case to Be "Major Showdown"

By
Michelle Levi
Topics
Washington Unplugged


The Supreme Court returned from summer recess early today to hear a case about "Hillary: The Movie." The FEC considered the negative portrayal of Clinton's career in the film, financed by Citizens United, to be in violation of campaign finance law that restricts corporations and labor unions from directly paying for advertising advocating a candidate on TV within 60 days of an election. The makers of the film say it's an issue of free speech.

On "Washington Unplugged" Wednesday, Rep. David Price (D- N.C.), who wrote an amicus curiae in the case in support of the FEC , said if the court was to be "attentive to precedent as well as to the intent of the law...I believe they won't open these larger cases."

Price called McCain-Feingold a "very solid case in law" and admitted that it is "unsettling that the court seems to be looking at these older precedents as well."

He said he had "no idea" why the Supreme Court came back early to hear this case. "This case...could be settled on much narrower grounds."

CBS News' Supreme Court Correspondent Wyatt Andrews, who just returned from the court's morning session said the Supreme Court opened up a large first ammendment debate.

"The arguments were very very conflicted, fascinating and this one is going to be a major showdown," he said. "The court drastically expanded the constitutional arguments around this case. Last March it was just about whether McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform from 2002 intended to cover" documentaries like the one in question.

In defense of Citizens United, Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch said "this is speech that some politicians don't like and they don't like it because it comes from corporations because it comes from the wrong crowd or it is funded by the wrong kind of money but it is speech none the less and it deserves first ammendment protection."

Add a Comment
by tinmancn January 24, 2010 10:30 AM EST
Multinational corporations owe allegiance to no land.
Reply to this comment
by amacd2-2009 September 11, 2009 5:06 PM EDT
This pending compromise of human democracy by the Supreme Court reminds me of two bad corporatist precedents that were major sell-outs; the Supreme Court scam of 1886, supposedly giving corporations the rights of citizens, and the corporate empire?s use of their paid politicans (like Phil Gramm, Bill Clinton, and Bush bunny) to overturn the 1933 Glass Stegall Act.

It was Phil (NASCAR announcer) Gramm, Hank Paulson and the rest of Bush's lying crooks who only recently sold the swill that, "the Glass Stegall Act (the valued post Great Depression regulation of 1933, which insured that Wall Street manipulation among investment banks, financial brokerage, and insurance, would never again cause another financial collapse) is nothing but an old 'depression era relic' which needs to be overturned to allow our 21st century financial innovations to keep America competitive".

After these lying political ****** got their way and killed Glass Stegall --- almost immediately, the crooked Wall Street con-artists used their new-found deregulation to 'game' the system and drive the U.S. and the whole world into new Great Depression and 'bailout bonanza' implosion of 2008, 2009 and 20XX --- which is still destroying our main-street economy, our homes, our jobs, and our country.

Now the same type of political (and judicial) ****** for the global corporate Empire are saying, "the old 1907 law preventing corporations from bribing and distorting our political system of human/citizen democracy is nothing but an almost 19th century relic which prevents free speech".

As Clint Eastwood said in "Dirty Harry": "Well, punk. Do you feel lucky?" Do you want to give these lying corporate, financial, Elitist, EMPIRE ****** a second chance to rain ultimate death and destruction on our country? "Well, do you American citizens?"

Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Reply to this comment
by PacificGatePost September 9, 2009 11:27 PM EDT
This may be one of the most important decisions made by this court. It should receive front page coverage, and cameras should be providing us with front row center seats to the drama.

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2009/09/political-campaign-funding-democracys.html

Voting taxpayers should want to increase controls on campaign funding, not reduce them.
Reply to this comment
by jsthrift September 9, 2009 5:33 PM EDT
Cong. David Price is 100 percent on target -- as usual. Democracy is dependent on free and fair elections. Unfettered intrusion by corporations, shortly before voting day, could bias elections and undermine our democratic processes.
Reply to this comment
by OldGeezer43 September 9, 2009 4:57 PM EDT
The first amendment states "prohibits the Congress from making laws...
.Infringing the freedom of speech" (whether we like or not) which are
subject to the laws of libel and slander. Do we take this literally,
or do we allegorize it to fit our agenda? Seems pretty cut & dried
to me.
Reply to this comment
by phijef September 9, 2009 4:36 PM EDT
Fine...then tighten our libel laws.
Reply to this comment
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...