Posted by | September 9, 2009 11:06 | Filed under: Top Stories

The Supreme Court, in a rare September session, is listening to arguments about whether the right-wing produced “Hillary: The Movie” should be regulated as a campaign ad, or considered free speech under the First Amendment.

But it took on greater significance after the justices decided to use the case to consider whether to ease restrictions, established in two earlier decisions now at issue, on how corporations and labor unions may spend money to influence elections.


Here’s the original issue:

A conservative not-for-profit group, Citizens United, wanted to air ads for the anti-Clinton movie and distribute it through video-on-demand services on local cable systems during the 2008 Democratic primary campaign.


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


“Citizens United” is a group headed by Clinton critic David Bossie (right).

The film is filled with criticisms of the former first lady, whom Obama defeated in the primaries and then made his secretary of state. It includes Dick Morris, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now a Clinton critic, saying the one-time candidate is “the closest thing we have in America to a European socialist.”


As for Bossie, he is a long time anti-Clinton activist.

Bossie was fired as an investigator for the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee after overseeing the release of recordings of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s phone conversations with Whitewater figure Webster L. Hubbell. The tapes were edited to create the impression that Clinton was involved in billing irregularities at the Arkansas law firm where she and Hubbell worked.


So, should “Hillary: The Movie” be considered free speech, or was it really a campaign commercial attempting to sway voters away from from Hillary Clinton?

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2009 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.