Hillary critics fight campaign finance rules

By Candyce Torres, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service. Today the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. A corporation produced a film documentary about Hillary Clinton. The corporation wanted to show the documentary in theaters and make it available on video-on-demand cable TV services during the presidential primary. It also wanted to advertise it on television. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also known as McCain-Feingold, prohibits corporate-funded electioneering communications from being aired within a certain time frame before an election and requires disclosure of the sources of funding. The question before the court was whether these limits and disclosure rules are unconstitutional as applied in this case. All Justices struggled with drawing a distinction between 60-second campaign ads normally aired on TV and the 90-minute documentary. Justice Ginsburg expressed concern regarding the content of the video because it displayed things worth remembering which would cause one to form negative opinions about a candidate before voting, just as all campaign advertisement do. Justice Kennedy also stated that if the Court found the regulation of this film unconstitutional that this whole statute would then fall. He argued that a more subtle message could have been just as effective as a 90 minute film. Justice Ginsburg noted that this film had been previously compared to Fahrenheit 9/11, but the difference is that Michael Moore’s film was not financed by corporate funds. A decision in the case will likely be delivered in May.