Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Hillary Movie

HRC Just the two words ‘Hillary Movie’ in an article title or sentence are enough to grab one’s attention. It is less clear whether the same reaction would arise by adding another pair of words, ‘Supreme Court’. But all four words are included in an Associated Press tidbit at Newsmax that features quotes for the politically inclined in the aftermath of the long and troubling finale to the 2008 Presidential election. But the troubles never really end at the conclusion of an election. It just allows more time to focus on all the other issues that took a back seat to Presidential politics over the last two years.

This is a combo post. Incorporating an extension of the political coverage here in combination with recently expressed intentions to focus on the more important matters of this nation’s founding, its core principles and all that implies. This blog has published extensively on the topic of politics and HRC, the Queen of Cringe, aka, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Heavy attention was placed on her since her announced run for the White House. A blogroll from Blogs Against Hillary has been prominently featured in the sidebar for nearly the entire 2008 campaign. The sentiment on the former First Lady has been openly expressed and not favorable for the entire history of her Presidential run. So it figures there would be some joy at presenting quotes mentioned above from the AP report.

“Hillary is the closest thing we have in America to a European socialist,” Morris said in an ad that is part of the court record. The court record refers to the lower court and Supreme Court records by virtue of the lawsuit over presentation of a documentary that was to be aired as early as last January. In an ad on the Citizens United Web site for the Obama movie, he said, “He is representative of the ultimate left of the Democratic party.” Dick Morris, [is] the former pollster for President Bill Clinton,

The Supreme Court will hear an appeal from a conservative group that wanted to promote and air its anti-Hillary Clinton movie without complying with a landmark campaign finance law. The conservative group, Citizens United, has produced a collection of videos described as documentaries two of which feature Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. It is reported that movies produced by this group have received or been nominated for some awards. SourceWatch reports they are a 501 organization and may have been a 527 or connected to 527 political action committees. Founded in 1988, the group appears to be focused on topics that are mentioned here as imporant. Our nation’s founding, its principles and the need to promote or foster conservative principles such as family values, fiscal responsibility, free enterprise or markets and other familiar concerns including adhering to the US Constitution. Remarkably that is what the court case and presentation of the group’s videos being barred by the FEC involves.

Links and resources are offered at the end of this post following a comment or two by this blog’s author.

gavel and flag At issue in the lawsuit is Citizens United’s right to air its video or ads at a time which the FEC contends was too close to an election and the whole promotion and airing of videos was deemed a political campaign or ad therefore being barred by law. The plaintiff suggests free speech rights versus the FEC overstepping its authority by denying those rights with its barring of the videos, etc. Ever since McCain/Feingold and the high court ruling supporting free speech rights within the context of political campaign ads and those used by groups not connected directly with political campaigns, this whole matter seems to be a little muddy. And while personally this blog may favor the efforts of Citizens United plus hold a troubled opinion of what exactly campaign finance reform or free speech or poltical ads should have to do wth each other, the bottom line at this point may be the entire argument and premise for getting here may be flawed and misguided while the SCOTUS response to such things seems reasoned under the circumstances.

Put another way, Citizens United may be promoting a good thing in terms of conservative values but using the videos as part of that effort may be a poor choice and the law or its application or interpretation no matter how correct may be making a bad situation worse. It will take more posts on this subject with the required research, review and study to come to some kind of conclusion if one is available.

You might like to start with the link below ‘Amicus Curiae Brief of the American Civil Rights Union In Support of Jurisdictional Statement of Appellant Citizens United’ as it was, here at least, an attention getting title. At first it was viewed as a typo and the reaction OMG, the ACLU is butting in again. No, the ACRU is not the ACLU at all and the reading is quite enlightening although that is not a commentary on the substance of the brief or the argument presented.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Supreme Court to Review Hillary Movie

MOTION TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM (USDOJ)

Citizens United v. FEC

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 16th, 2008 at 11:45 pm and is filed under Public Affairs, wordpress, Politics, campaign, ethics, America, Law, Justice, Advertising, Video, Legislation, Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

4 Responses to “Hillary Movie”

Debbie Says:
November 17th, 2008 at 2:28 am
Two words “porno film”… heh

I bet Hillary did not get an offer of $2 million to do a porn flick like Sarah Palin and her hubby did. Or so I heard …
Angel Says:
November 17th, 2008 at 3:38 am
oish! I thought I would never have to hear Hillarys name again!
Stanford Matthews Says:
November 17th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Debbie, funny you bring that up cuz as it turns out I posted something in August 2007 borrowing on a theme from another site about Hillary and, go figure, nude photos that was a ’spoof’. I had crossposted it to your site and to this day it gets a lot of hits. A not so impressive commentary on the public interest.

But of course this time the HRC ‘movie’ post is simply a matter of a ‘documentary’ and an argument with the FEC on whether it serves as a campaign tool warranting a ban near elections as stated in the court records.
Stanford Matthews Says:
November 17th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
C’mon Angel, you didn’t really think that one half of the Democratic party’s strongest ‘brand’ would merely fade away after losing the White House, did you?

Based on the outcome of the 2008 Presidential election alone it would seem reasonable to adjust the Dems’ ‘brand’ idea such that Obama is now the most important with the mighty Clinton clan taking 2nd place or lower.

But with some members of the GOP as well as others commenting positively on the idea of HRC as SofS, the socialist movement in this country appears to be alive and whatever.

I just want to view the Hillary and Barack ‘documentaries’ from Citizens United but they are only available for purchase on DVD. I need to send a complaint to the FEC as they caused the cancelling of a broadcast debut that was offered for the movies.

It could have been added to the controversy over ABC airing ‘The Path to 9/11′ which I found most compelling not to mention accurate.

Should this be included in a discussion of the Fairness Doctrine debate or is it a separate subject? I suspect it is separate.

Hillary Movie

Citizens United v. FEC

Supreme Court Documents (08-205):

Supreme Court Documents (07-953)

District Court Documents (07-2240) :

4 Responses to “Hillary Movie”