Supreme Court Weighs "Hillary: The Movie"

Should Highly Critical Documentary Be Regulated As A Campaign Ad?

(AP)  Months after its debut, "Hillary: The Movie" faces nine of the nation's toughest critics: the Supreme Court.

The justices' review of the slashing documentary financed by longtime critics of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton could bring more than just a thumbs up or thumbs down. It may settle the question of whether the government can regulate a politically charged film as a campaign ad.

David Bossie, a former Republican congressional aide who produced the Clinton movie and another describing then-Sen. Barack Obama as an overhyped media darling, said his films are about important moments in American politics.

"The outcome of this case will dictate how we're able to make films and educate people about them," he said.

At issue in the case being argued before justices Tuesday is the 90-minute anti-Clinton movie and television ads Bossie wanted to air during the 2008 primaries advertising the film.

Bossie's group, the conservative Citizens United, released the movie as Clinton, then a New York senator, was competing with Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The movie is unquestionably anti-Clinton, featuring commentary from conservative pundits, some of whom specifically say Clinton was not fit to be commander in chief.

One scene, which was used in an ad, has Dick Morris, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now a critic of the Clintons, saying the senator is "the closest thing we have in America to a European socialist."

The movie was shown in eight theaters. Bossie's group wanted run ads on television in key election states during peak primary season and show the movie on cable television's video-on-demand.

Federal courts said the ads would violate the McCain-Feingold law, the popular name for 2002 revisions to the nation's campaign finance laws. Judges called "Hillary: The Movie" a 90-minute attack ad, rulings that would require Citizens United to identify the financial backers for the ads if they were to appear on television.

---

Read the case docket and general information about Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

---

The court also said that if Bossie's group showed the movie on cable television, financial backers would have to be named and the group would have to pay the cost of airing the movie.

Citizens United appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that "Hillary: The Movie" should not be considered a political ad. The group says there is nothing in the movie urging people to vote against Clinton. The group says the film is more of a documentary comparable to critical television news programs such as "Frontline," "Nova" and "60 Minutes."

"The fact that 'Hillary' presents a critical assessment of Sen. Clinton's political background, character, and fitness for office does not convert the movie ... into an appeal to vote against Sen. Clinton," said Theodore Olson, Citizens United's lawyer.

"Indeed, a critical exposition of the political background and policy views of a former first lady and sitting U.S. senator is precisely the type of uninhibited, robust, and wide open debate and discussion that the First Amendment protects and encourages," Olson argues.

A panel of federal judges disagreed, calling "Hillary" nothing but an extended-length political attack ad. The Justice Department agreed, saying "'Hillary' is a 90-minute advocacy piece whose unmistakable meaning is that Hillary Clinton should not be elected president.

Some question whether that declaration strays too close to regulation of journalists, who generally have been exempt from campaign finance rules.

Without passing judgment on the content of "Hillary," the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a brief supporting Citizens United, telling the Supreme Court that the media has been critical of presidential candidates since George Washington.

"By criminalizing the distribution of a long-form documentary film, as if it was nothing more than a very long advertisement, the district court has created uncertainty about where the line between traditional news commentary and felonious advocacy lies," the group said.

If the decision is upheld, "I can certainly see journalists running afoul of this law in the future," lawyer Lucy Dalglish said.

This isn't the first time documentary filmmakers have been questioned in relation to campaign finance laws. Citizens United in 2004 sought to keep filmmaker Michael Moore from advertising "Fahrenheit 9/11" - which was critical of President George W. Bush - in the run-up to the presidential election.

The Federal Election Commission, charged with enforcing the McCain-Feingold law, dismissed the complaint after Moore said he had no plans to run the ads during election season.

Bossie said Moore's success is what inspired him. "Michael Moore forced me to recognize the power of documentary film," said Bossie, who was involved in the House's investigation of Bill Clinton that led to the president's impeachment and trial.

So regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, expect to see more politically charged movies from Citizens United.

Soon after Obama secured the nomination, Bossie's organization came out with "Obama: The Hype Effect" and ran into the same legal problems with the Federal Election Commission. That didn't stop the group from having free DVDs inserted into The Columbus Dispatch, The Cincinnati Enquirer, The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer, The Palm Beach (Fla.) Post and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Bossie expects to produce at least 15 movies at his Washington-area studio by the next presidential election in 2012. Among them, he says, will be "Stimulate This," an indictment of the recently enacted economic stimulus package.

The case is Citizens United v. FEC, 08-205.

[wyzguy11]

Mr. Bossie and his group, Citizens United, are in no way even close to productions such as "Frontline" on PBS.

Maybe they can do a "documentary" on the 7 houses and 13 cars owned by Senator McCain, and his part in the 1987 Keating 5 Scandel which is similar to the problems we are now having with AIG!

[ianlou]

The Courts should stay out of it.

I want Michael Moore to be able to create his films unhindered.

[abbe91]

The movie should of been allowed becaue you have to buy it. Its not like a political add.
Posted by jedi0849 at 11:00 PM : Mar 22, 2009

They plan to distribute it for free and play it on cable TV ... so it is a political ad.
Funny they tried to censor Michael Moore ...

[bytheway59]

Only if: we all were for something and against nothing. this would then be a none issue.

[valh1]

I personally believe this would be a waste of the court's time. There have got to be better things to do.

[jedi0849]

The movie should of been allowed becaue you have to buy it. Its not like a political add.

The NYT was allowed to write a BS story about an affair John McCain never had yet, there were countless books written about the different canidates and stories.

[McHineguy]

There seems to be a bit of confusion on the part of the disaffected losers who don't understand that the issue here is whether or not the "movie" in question was a POLITICAL advertisement, produced with the intention of influencing election results. It has absoltely nothing to do with "liberals trying to deny free speech" (which is something that liberals would never do, anyway). If this "movie" was a paid political advertisement then the law requires its financial backers to be identified. But "Citizens United" refused to disclose the names of the financial backers. Why do you think that is? Most likely because it really was a paid political advertisement, paid for by slimeballs who don't want to play by the rules. The fact that "Citizens United" "expects to produce at least 15 movies at his Washington-area studio by the next presidential election in 2012" is a virtual admission of the fact that those "movies" will also be nothing more than paid political advertisements. Not one of the biggest movie studios in the world can churn out 15 movies in so little time. But political hack jobs don't take nearly so long to produce!
Posted by every1one at 8:17 PM : Mar 22, 2009

Nice theory but it fails a primary test. The so-called "Fairness Doctrine" which the Dems frequently tout as a method to ballance Rush Limbaugh. I don tlisten to Rush, but I ahor censorship in any form.

Yes, Virginia, liberals often attempt to censor.

[realnews12]

Fascinating. Not a word a the film "W" which ran during the recent Presidential election season.

Posted by AmericanTalker at 9:43 PM : Mar 22, 2009

But Bush was not running for any election!!!! Duh.

[SJC1701]

Can you imagine what we could accomplish if we could direct this negativity (left or right) to our common problems?

I am totally confused when I read some of these posts - do you think issues like health care, social security and foreign oil will just affect certain people of certain political allegiances?

and a bit of a side bar, can the next person who chooses to use the word socialism please define it? The lack of economic knowledge is astounding.

[McHineguy]

As a liberal, I'm against anything that smacks of taking away freedom of speech, whether it's Michael Moore or the Hillary critics. The freedom of speech and freedom of the press are the only things protecting us from the masters. A reporter in Owensville, Mo. exposed a man claiming to be a Federal Drug Agent when the cops thought he was for real. A Manteca CA reporter for the weekly paper exposed a cop who slugged a woman in a bar and then told the DA to charge the husband with slugging the woman in the bar, even though video tape showed him slugging her. We need more freedom of the press and speech, not less.
Posted by ludvig1-2009 at 2:59 PM : Mar 22, 2009

As a conservative, I agree, completely. I think Michael Moore exagerates, Al Gore sensationalizes, and todays Main Stream Media have become overly liberal. But I defend their right to say whatever they want. I even read it or watch it, just to check my bearings. I believe that two heads are better than one and 300 Million must be better than two. We can only work together if we listen to each other without censorship.

I have the right to not agree with whatever you say, but you have the right to say it. And if you are polite, I will listen.

[idlepugilist]

Wow, seems there are some people who think Obama should already have the worst economic situation in 30 years fixed after 8 weeks. So, let's assume Obama and the Clintons are to blame for bringing about and escalating the subprime mortgage problem. What you won't see is W weighing in on the steep recession and miserable unemployment situation.
Back on earth, we have the same problem starting up that occured when Bill took office: big money financing any way to slander Democrats or dredge up unsubstantiated rumors about the Clintons again. Feels like the good ol' days!

[ludvig1-2009]

As a liberal, I'm against anything that smacks of taking away freedom of speech, whether it's Michael Moore or the Hillary critics. The freedom of speech and freedom of the press are the only things protecting us from the masters. A reporter in Owensville, Mo. exposed a man claiming to be a Federal Drug Agent when the cops thought he was for real. A Manteca CA reporter for the weekly paper exposed a cop who slugged a woman in a bar and then told the DA to charge the husband with slugging the woman in the bar, even though video tape showed him slugging her. We need more freedom of the press and speech, not less.

[McHineguy]

Just more of the same from the republiCON party of "NO," that continues to try to divide America further through its constant rovian attacks and vile remarks since they have nothing else -- NO SOLUTIONS -- NO NEW IDEAS -- JUST MORE OF THE SAME!
Posted by evilbusheviks at 9:42 AM : Mar 22, 2009

TRY TO DIVIDE OUR COUNTRY? You mean with screen names like "evilbusheviks" and unsupported accusation towards the "other party"? Way to go fellow American. Thanks for the help.

[McHineguy]

She did not authorize the lies / deception / criminal behavior .......
Posted by JAMESC2002 at 12:22 PM : Mar 22, 2009

Your kidding arent you? She and Mr Bill began the effort to undermine Iraq. Made repeated claims that Sadam must be stopped. But Mr Bill lacked the fortitude to do it. so when W, began talking war with Iraq, Mrs C backed him completely. Especially sice it was politically correct in the great state of New York to seek revenge for 9/11. She even backe dthe decision by some resaraunts to rename them "Freedom Fires" because the French wouldnt assist us in our quest for revenge. So, Mrs C, Mr Bill, and W formed a bipartisan team that authorized "military action" (their term for war). Many claim that W lied but they overlook that Mr Bill and Mrs C had the same information that W had.

So, yes, I find it hilaryious that she now must confront the same people she once openly criticized.

[Mccarthyaw]

somehow I knew that the posters here would support stopping this film from ever being shown, all the while "W" is on pay per view, having made it through the theaters. Hypocrites. Apparently, freedom of speech only applies if you're a liberal.
Posted by NancyLou9 at 7:53 AM : Mar 22, 2009

Somehow I do not remember Bush running for a third term.

[sandy19731]

The difference between "Hillary" and "W" is that "Hillary" is accurate and not filled with misrepresentations. This is what always fires up the left, their icons being exposed for what they are.
Posted by historydude2 at 10:33 AM : Mar 22, 2009

I totally agree with you --- except the opposite. Just change the Hillary and W around and change left to right.

And....that's our problem.

[formrusmcsgt]

Speaking of Hillary, I find it only fitting that she, as SOS, inherets the job of cleaning up what she authorized dubya to do.

[formrusmcsgt]

From where I sit, the issue here is whether a group can present a "biased" piece as being "objective".

Now, the determination of whether something is "objective" or not, is entirely subjective in that the determination of objectiveness is based on an individual's, or group of individuals, perspective.

Should a piece that is designed to assail be allowed to be passed off as "objective".

Of course not.

The problem lies in defining "objective".

Extreme neocons would probably perceive the piece to be entirely objective because it conforms to the image they hold of Hillary.

Extreme Dems would probably find little or no objectivity as it contrasts completely with their image of Clinton.

We Independents in the middle just shake our heads and feel thankful that the extremeists among us do not join we Independents.

They go to the Repubs or Dems to house their extremism.

[formrusmcsgt]

I really do not understand what those who only insult others think that they are accomplishing here. That is, other than to show all how childish they really are....

[Renegade.Rivers]

We'd better face the fact that ANYONE today who differs with Limbaugh and these Radical Fringe people are call "socialist" of "Lib's", which is code to these fanatics!! Anyone who was involved in the Civil Rights Movement knows exactly what I'm talking about! Posted by skyk-2009

Every time there is a conflict that involves the extreme (radical) right or the extreme (radical) left, they want to bash anyone who does not see things as they do. If its the extreme right talking, then anyone not of the same opinion is a "crazy liberal." The same thing with the extreme left, when they consider anyone who does not adhere to their opinions as "neo-cons."

As I have said and wrote many times, the extreme sides of both parties, the Democrats, and the Republicans are running many party followers to view both extremes as dangerous, and a detriment to our political system. After all when you go extreme right you have fascism, and when you go extreme left you have communism. In the the end, both extremes, would have the power of the people taken away and given to an elite few.

That is not what the people want, and the continued extremism that continues to plague both parties could very well lead to the demise of both parties. A recent poll taken after the election shows that over 50% of Americans are dissatisfied with the two party system, and consider themselves independents. It is only a matter of time before a third party candidate comes along who will garner more vote than either of the extremes candidates.

Most people in the United States are moderates, and believe that there is no law that can trump our constitution. Members of both extremes would have Americans believe that the constitution is nothing but a worthless old piece of paper. The reason for this is that as long as the constitution is in place, the extremist cannot fulfill their agenda.