U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court Orders Reargument in Case of ‘Hillary: The Movie’
Posted Jun 29, 2009 10:33 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled a special September session to consider whether it should overturn earlier rulings upholding limits on corporate and union campaign contributions.
The order delays a ruling in the case Citizens United v. FEC, the Associated Press reports. The issue before the justices was whether a documentary blasting Hillary Clinton is an electioneering communication subject to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The film, Hillary: The Movie, was critical of Clinton. Its backers wanted to show it on demand on cable television.
The reargument order says the parties should address whether to overrule Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and part of McConnell v. FEC upholding McCain-Feingold, SCOTUSblog reports. Austin held that state governments may bar corporations from using corporate treasury funds to support or oppose candidate elections, according to the SCOTUSblog live blog.
“This is very big,” Loyola law professor Rick Hasen writes at his Election Law Blog.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
B. McLeod
Jun 29, 2009 11:10 PM CST
I haven’t seen this yet, so no “spoilers,” please.
Flag this comment
Peter L. Wanger
Jun 30, 2009 7:40 PM CST
The root of our problems with campaign financing is Buckley v Valeo, which held that giving money to a candidate is protected by the First Amendment as political speech. It will ultimately rank as one of the worst opinions in our history up there with Plessy v Ferguson and Karamatsu v United States. The Supreme Court must overrule Buckley v Valeo. If I stand on the street corner and criticize the president, I have First Amendment protection, so long as I don’t disturb the peace (and I could make a good argument that, if all I was doing was speaking, I can’t be prosecuted), but if my friend gives me money to rent a microphone and speaker, I can reach more people. If he gives me enough for a radio ad, that’s even more people. And if he gives me enough for a 1/2 hour TV commercial, that reaches more people. What I say is political speech at the heart of the First Amendment freedom of speech clause. But his money is NOT speech, it’s payment for a service. It should be regulated because we’ve seen how money corrupts politics. Until Buckley v Valeo is overturned, all of Congress’ attempts to regulate political spending will be useless.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.