Unplugged: Hillary Movie Case to Be "Major Showdown"

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."