Citizens United v. FEC
Justices take appeal over anti-Hillary Clinton film (Nov. 14, 2008)
The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a federal campaign finance law prohibited a conservative interest group from broadcasting and promoting a movie critical of Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton during the presidential primaries.
The Washington, D.C.-based group Citizens United intended to release its film, “Hillary: The Movie,” to theaters and for store sales on DVD during the 2008 presidential primary season. It did not go forward with plans to put out the movie in TV-on-demand access on cable TV, because it feared the FEC would apply the ad ban to it.
The group seeks to challenge the federal “electioneering communications” disclosure requirements in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act as applied to its film. The law prohibits corporations and nonprofits from airing broadcast ads, which refer to a federal candidate 30 days before a primary election.
Using the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, which exempted issue advocacy from the electioneering communications prohibition, Citizens United argues that the ads should be exempt as constitutionally protected for their discussion of issues.
In January, a three-judge panel on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected Citizens United’s motion for a preliminary injunction, and in July, the court granted the Federal Election Commission’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in McConnell v. FEC, upholding the BCRA’s disclosure requirements even if a particular radio or TV ad would not be banned under that law.
On Nov. 14, the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case.
Question presented: Whether federal campaign finance laws apply to a critical film about Sen. Hillary Clinton intended to be shown in theaters and on-demand to cable subscribers.
Justices take appeal over anti-Hillary Clinton film (Nov. 14, 2008)
The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a federal campaign finance law prohibited a conservative interest group from broadcasting and promoting a movie critical of Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton during the presidential primaries.
The Washington, D.C.-based group Citizens United intended to release its film, “Hillary: The Movie,” to theaters and for store sales on DVD during the 2008 presidential primary season. It did not go forward with plans to put out the movie in TV-on-demand access on cable TV, because it feared the FEC would apply the ad ban to it.
The group seeks to challenge the federal “electioneering communications” disclosure requirements in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act as applied to its film. The law prohibits corporations and nonprofits from airing broadcast ads, which refer to a federal candidate 30 days before a primary election.
Using the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, which exempted issue advocacy from the electioneering communications prohibition, Citizens United argues that the ads should be exempt as constitutionally protected for their discussion of issues.
In January, a three-judge panel on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected Citizens United’s motion for a preliminary injunction, and in July, the court granted the Federal Election Commission’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in McConnell v. FEC, upholding the BCRA’s disclosure requirements even if a particular radio or TV ad would not be banned under that law.
On Nov. 14, the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case.
Question presented: Whether federal campaign finance laws apply to a critical film about Sen. Hillary Clinton intended to be shown in theaters and on-demand to cable subscribers.