From what is said here, it appears that from now, until the next election that Hillary Clinton is running for office, there would be no FEC restriction on showing the movie. So it is kind of a moot point now. If it was restricted by the FEC, it would have been last year, when the Dept. of Justice was under the Bush administration, and the current administration would be presenting argument to the Supreme Court to uphold the previous administration's action. Of course the FEC is nonpartisan, right?

This is a tough question. We all have a favorite candidate who was swamped by last-minute money, liberal or conservative, covering the media with attack ads. Unfortunately, a significant percentage of voters swing with these ads, even if they regret it later. The idea was to keep that sort of blitz from swaying an election, leaving a larger number of not quite so loud voices to all participate in the public square. Michael Moore wouldn't have had any worries about "Roger and Me" or "Bowling for Columbine," but "Farenheit 911" might well have been shut down in Sept and Oct 2004. It could have run most of the summer though.

However, the refusal by the production company (Disney I believe) to release it is not censorship. If they want to release it, they can. They simply choose not to.

But by virtue of BCRA, "Hillary the Movie" was enjoined because McCain and Feingold didn't like POLITICAL speech (a basic constitutional right), so the appellants are arguing that the movie was strictly COMMERCIAL and should therefore not have been enjoined.

This is Alice in Wonderland law. In order to get a film about a politician seen, you have to argue that it has constitutional protection because it ISN'T political speech. They are forced to argue that the movie shouldn't have been enjoined because it is commercial speech, which traditionally had practically no First Amendment protection at all.

BCRA is an unconstitutional denial of freedom of political free speech, a basic and fundamental right that our Founders risked their lives to put into words. It's time for the Supreme Court to say so, in clear and unequivocal terms. I doubt that it will.

I also wrote a somewhat lengthier response, which went into the robo-moderation rabbit hole. That's twice today, and it's still early.

Not as long as Kennedy gets to be the swing vote. He loves the spotlight and ambiguity too much. I too, would think this would be a slam dunk, but after their prior rulings and tortured reasoning on the BCRA, nothing would surprise me. At least we can count on an entertaining opinion from Scalia and/or Thomas.

Not as long as Kennedy gets to be the swing vote. He loves the spotlight and ambiguity too much. I too, would think this would be a slam dunk, but after their prior rulings and tortured reasoning on the BCRA, nothing would surprise me. At least we can count on an entertaining opinion from Scalia and/or Thomas.