FEC Declines to Rule on Filmmaker (Michael Moore) Exemption

[WilliamPitt]

(subscription required)

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/6062-1.html

FEC Declines to Rule on Filmmaker Exemption

Thursday, Jun. 24; 02:23pm

As critics stepped up their efforts to discredit Michael Moore’s controversial documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11,” the Federal Election Commission declined to rule on whether documentary films qualify for a journalistic exemption from laws designed to regulate campaign advertisements and other types of electioneering.

The question landed at the FEC because of a case involving a far less famous filmmaker, David Hardy. Hardy’s film, “The Rights of the People,” explores the Bill of Rights and is being produced on behalf of a nonprofit group called the Bill of Rights Educational Foundation, according to documentation filed with the FEC.

In a meeting Thursday morning, FEC commissioners concurred with the agency’s general counsel that proposed advertisements for Hardy’s film qualify as “electioneering communications” and therefore may not be paid for with corporate or labor funds. Moreover, if legally funded, such ads would be subject to stringent reporting requirements.

But the commissioners at the meeting broke with the general counsel, which had advised that the filmmaker should not be granted a “media exception” equivalent to that provided to broadcast journalists and others. Instead, the commissioners said that the FEC would not address the question of a media exemption one way or another.

...more...

[wtmusic]

1. Seems to me the line should be drawn

at when the program is a paid advertisement.

[Democat]

2. Campaign finance laws are being used to oppress art - this is incredible!

This was never the intent of campaign finance law.

The right wing are so good at fighting us and we are not even close to as good at fighting them.

We need to get mean and dirty like them.

Democrats should step up and ask that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh as well as any other right wing talk shows and stations be shut down - including Clear Channel radio and most of the newspapers in the United States.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Democat]

10. Are people really naive enough to still believe in being nice?

The way that you fight fire is with fire.

If we come back at the Republicans as hard as they come at us, then they will be less likely to try this bullshit again.

If they thought we would actually fight back instead of bending over and taking it like the Democratic party has been doing for the last three years, then Republicans would have a reason to have second thoughts about their attacks.

Believing in Democracy doesn't mean talking about it, it means fighting for it.

Our side needs to be willing to fight as hard as the other side, or all the talk in the world doesn't mean a thing.

We have been letting the Republicans destroy our Democracy, that's the truth.

We allow Rush Limbaugh on Armed Forces radio, while they try to block Michael Moore from being shown in private theaters. Do you not see a problem here?

[Judi Lynn]

3. ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ ban?

‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ ban?
Ads for Moore’s movie could be stopped on July 30
By Alexander Bolton


Michael Moore may be prevented from advertising his controversial new movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” on television or radio after July 30 if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) today accepts the legal advice of its general counsel.

At the same time, a Republican-allied 527 soft-money group is preparing to file a complaint against Moore’s film with the FEC for violating campaign-finance law.

In a draft advisory opinion placed on the FEC’s agenda for today’s meeting, the agency’s general counsel states that political documentary filmmakers may not air television or radio ads referring to federal candidates within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.

The opinion is generated under the new McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, which prohibits corporate-funded ads that identify a federal candidate before a primary or general election.
(snip/...)

http://www.thehill.com/news/062404/moore.aspx

[apnu]

4. I don't get it...

... could someone give me a hand here? Does this mean Moore is off the hook or not? The first paragraph talks about Moore, but the rest is about Hardy. And I don't see how the two are related.

[LeftHander]

7. It means the FEC thought it was irrelevant....

Thus they declined to even consider it....

In other words it was thrown out.....

[apnu]

11. Groovy... another victory for Moore...

... he's hardly wrong on these things. Its amazing.

[geek tragedy]

6. LMAO!

Is that the same David Hardy of "Bowling for Truth?"

That would be too goddamn funny.

[colonel odis]

8. i agree that someone should sue to have rush and fox calmed down

could be the beginning of the restoration of the fairness doctrine.

the republicans are pissing and crying about a film being shown in 800 theaters. well, they've got about that many talk radio stations that have been trying to (re)elect bush and keep kerry from being elected since about 6 a.m. and that's today alone.

my guess is, the righties were just talking big and swaggering, as they're prone to do. the f.e.c. doesn't want to make trouble for itself by getting involved in something like this.

[Dr Fate]

9. Except you have to PAY to see it, not the other way around...

This is not an ad that just pops up on TV or in the paper that was paid for by a candidate or advocacy group, it's a movie that interested people PAY to see.

Why is no one making this distinction?

[Dover]

12. I think as long as people are PAYING to see a movie, it shouldn't be

regulated as campaign advertisement. It's not like the masses are exposed without their consent.