Court Delays Ruling On Anti-Clinton Movie

Supreme Court Fails To Decide, Will Hear Arguments Again In September

(AP)  The Supreme Court has failed to decide on whether a scathing documentary about Hillary Rodham Clinton that was shown during the presidential race should be regulated as if it were a campaign ad.

The court said Monday it will hear arguments in the case again in a special session on Sept. 9. The justices said they want lawyers to address whether the court should overturn its earlier rulings on limiting corporate and union contributions in federal elections.

Citizens United, a conservative not-for-profit group, wanted to air ads for the movie in Democratic primary states and also make the film available to cable subscribers on demand without complying with federal campaign finance law.

But lower courts have said the movie looked and sounded like a long campaign ad, and therefore should be regulated like one.

At the time of "Hillary: The Movie," the New York senator was competing with Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. She is now secretary of state in the Obama administration.

The court's composition will be different by the time it rehears the case. Justice David Souter plans to retire this month, and Obama has nominated Sonia Sotomayor, a judge from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, to replace him.

Obama and Democrats hope the Senate confirms Sotomayor before the high court session in September.

The movie is unquestionably anti-Clinton, featuring commentary from conservative pundits, some of whom specifically say she was not fit to be commander in chief. One scene, which was used in an ad, shows Dick Morris describing the senator as "the closest thing we have in America to a European socialist."

Morris, who once served as an adviser to former President Bill Clinton, is now one of the Clintons' harshest critics.

Citizens United wanted to pay for its documentary to be shown on home video-on-demand, and for ads promoting the movie to be shown in competitive Democratic primary states.

Federal judges, however, said the movie should be regulated by the McCain-Feingold law, the popular name for 2002 revisions to the nation's campaign finance law. 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.

The court also said that if the 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.

The movie was advertised on the Internet, sold on DVD and shown in a few theaters. Campaign regulations do not apply to DVDs, theaters or the Internet.

More Supreme Court coverage:

Court Rules For Firefighters In Ricci Case
Sotomayor Overturned In Firefighters Case
Tie Goes to Kennedy In Ricci Case
Supreme Court To Take NFL Apparel Case
Supreme Court Won't Touch Bible Club Case
Court Passes On 9/11 Claims Against Saudis
Court Delays Ruling On Anti-Clinton Movie
Supreme Court Hands DVR Win To Cable Cos.

[noloyalisti]

Since they have nothing good to say, they just character assassinate. Since they have no credibility, you cannot even say what is a lie and what is not. Just like typical zombie Republicans, the truth is whatever you want it to be.

[woeisme1]

I'm new here but they do seem to be particularly rude and quite vile really. Not on this board but on many other stories their commets are very antagonistc. They do seem afraid and angry people. I agree with you noloyalisti.

[noloyalisti]

Citizens United, a conservative group - no brains, no plans, no credibility. Just a bunch of frightened, ignorant, angry white men. What a pathetic bunch of losers.

[CLoverNYC1]

by jrc007 June 29, 2009 12:16 PM PDT
The law requires the filmmakers to disclose the names of their financial backers in their ads.
______________________

Oh, you mean backing money from organizations like ACORN?

[MikeInNYC2]

YES! If ACORN contributed money to the making of this video, that should be public knowledge.

[CLoverNYC1]

by antoniof123 June 29, 2009 11:56 AM PDT
Why do we care I mean really why do we care about this she didn't win Obama did.
______________________________

Answer:

Because Hilary the Whitewater Queen is in high office in the Obama administration with delegated authority to make decisions affecting the lives of Americans.

[jrc007]

"Liberal hypocrisy in action"?

Would that be "liberals" like Roberts, "Scalito," part-time neo-conman Kennedy and con meat-puppet, Thomas? The Court Cons will certainly try to overturn existing laws against this type of propaganda-as-"fact" political advertising.

We are routinely bombarded by ads from "astroturf" grassroots groups - almost all right-wing - telling us what we should think about issues of the day. Liberal "hypocrites" prefer that folks think for themselves.

The law requires the filmmakers to disclose the names of their financial backers in their ads. This seems entirely reasonable. What were they afraid of? Was their backer Bernie Madoff?

[antoniof123]

Why do we care I mean really why do we care about this she didn't win Obama did.

Typical waste money on this in the courts.

[USA_Constitution]

RIDICULOUS! MICHAEL MOORE AND THE REST OF THE LIBERAL LEFT - CAN MAKE MOVIES ABOUT ANY REPUBLICAN THOUGH. MY GOD! THIS IS ALREADY A DICTATORSHIP COUNTRY. PEOPLE, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE SUPPORTING IN THIS WHITE HOUSE. THEY ARE HIDING SO MUCH - YOU WOULD NEVER HAVE VOTED FOR THEM IF YOU KNEW WHAT THEY ARE INTENDING - AND START TO SUCCEED IN DOING TO YOUR LIVES.

[CLoverNYC1]

Liberal hypocrisy in action.

It's all right to market a film featuring the mock assassination of a sitting POTUS, but a less than complimentary film about SOS Hilary Clinton gets the kibosh of the court.

Freedom of speech in America.

Yes, we can't.