The Supreme Court voted today to take up a case that mixes Hollywood and Washington and will decide whether a politically charged film can be regulated as a campaign ad.
The justices said they would hear an appeal from a conservative group that produced "Hillary: The Movie," which was released in January. It offered a harsh portrayal of the former first lady and New York senator.
The justices said they would hear an appeal from a conservative group that produced "Hillary: The Movie," which was released in January. It offered a harsh portrayal of the former first lady and New York senator.
The film's sponsor, a group called Citizens United, made the movie with the anticipation that Clinton would be the Democratic nominee for president. The Federal Election Commission said the group could not advertise the film without running afoul of campaign-funding laws which, among other things, require disclosure of donors.
The McCain-Feingold Act forbids corporate-funded broadcast ads that attack a candidate within a month of a primary or general election. Lawyers for Citizens United said these restrictions were unconstitutional, but they lost in a lower court.
The Supreme Court held on to the group's appeal during the final weeks of election campaign, but announced today it would rule on the case early next year.
The McCain-Feingold Act forbids corporate-funded broadcast ads that attack a candidate within a month of a primary or general election. Lawyers for Citizens United said these restrictions were unconstitutional, but they lost in a lower court.
The Supreme Court held on to the group's appeal during the final weeks of election campaign, but announced today it would rule on the case early next year.
James Bopp Jr., counsel for Citizens United, said the restrictions on "Hillary: The Movie" violate the 1st Amendment. "The notion that a feature-length move can be banned is a return to the days of government censorship and book burnings," he said today.
The justices today also agreed to hear a closely watched case involving campaign contributions to state judges and the possibilities for corruption.
In West Virginia, the president of the A.T. Massey Coal Co spent $3 million in 2004 to fund the campaign of Brent Benjamin for the state Supreme Court. His contributions funded 60% of Benjamin's successful campaign.
Shortly after the election, the state high court agreed to hear Massey's appeal of a $50-million verdict against the company in a court case. And despite pleas that he withdraw, Justice Benjamin cast the deciding vote in a 3-2 ruling that overturned the verdict.
Washington lawyer Ted Olson asked the Supreme Court to take up the case and to rule the state verdict violated the Constitution's guarantee of due process of law to permit Justice Benjamin to play the deciding role in such a case.
There is "an unacceptable appearance of bias," Olson wrote, when a wealthy executive can use money to put a new justice on the state court who in turn repays the favor with a helpful ruling.
The high court also held on to this appeal until the election had passed.
The case, known as Caperton vs. A.T. Massey Coal Co., will be heard in February, and will likely put a spotlight on the growing role of big money in state Supreme Court races.
The justices today also agreed to hear a closely watched case involving campaign contributions to state judges and the possibilities for corruption.
In West Virginia, the president of the A.T. Massey Coal Co spent $3 million in 2004 to fund the campaign of Brent Benjamin for the state Supreme Court. His contributions funded 60% of Benjamin's successful campaign.
Shortly after the election, the state high court agreed to hear Massey's appeal of a $50-million verdict against the company in a court case. And despite pleas that he withdraw, Justice Benjamin cast the deciding vote in a 3-2 ruling that overturned the verdict.
Washington lawyer Ted Olson asked the Supreme Court to take up the case and to rule the state verdict violated the Constitution's guarantee of due process of law to permit Justice Benjamin to play the deciding role in such a case.
There is "an unacceptable appearance of bias," Olson wrote, when a wealthy executive can use money to put a new justice on the state court who in turn repays the favor with a helpful ruling.
The high court also held on to this appeal until the election had passed.
The case, known as Caperton vs. A.T. Massey Coal Co., will be heard in February, and will likely put a spotlight on the growing role of big money in state Supreme Court races.
