Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Court Puts Ad Limits on ‘Hillary: The Movie’

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 06:40 AM
Original message
Court Puts Ad Limits on ‘Hillary: The Movie’
The group, Citizens United, had hoped to run the television advertisements in key election states during peak primary season. The ruling means it must keep its commercials off the air or attach a disclaimer and disclose its donors.

skip

Campaign regulations prohibit corporations and unions from paying for advertisements that run close to elections and identify candidates. Citizens United argued that the advertisements promoted the movie and should be treated as commercial speech as opposed to advocacy against Mrs. Clinton.

A three-judge panel unanimously disagreed. The film does not address legislative issues and was produced solely “to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world, and that viewers should vote against her,” wrote Judge Royce C. Lamberth of Federal District Court.

Citizens United’s commercials include clips from the movie, including one in which Dick Morris — a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now a critic of the Clintons — says Mrs. Clinton is “the closest thing we have in America to a European socialist.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/us/politics/16ads.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

Finally a court supports a Dem!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 06:48 AM
Response to Original message
1. Why, thank you, Mr. Morris.
Edited on Wed Jan-16-08 06:57 AM by Perry Logan
The people over here say she's a corporatist. You Hillary-bashers really ought to get your story straight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 06:48 AM
Response to Original message
2. When haven't they supported her?
Not many judges they don't have in their pockets at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Maybe I'm not awake yet, but I can't remember any court ruling
against a conservative group and in favor of a Dem political candidate. The RW always screams "free speech" and usually wins! I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I'm glad to see these idiots kicked in the butt for a change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Most of their court issues aren't even brought to light. Like campaign fraud, etc. Point to a case
where they ruled against Hillary. I bet you won't find one. Bill's come out smelling like roses himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 06:54 AM
Response to Original message
3. And the bush is the closets thing we have in America to a Dictator. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalnurse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 06:58 AM
Response to Original message
5. Judges practice Justice
I love it when our system works!!!

YES!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 07:08 AM
Response to Original message
7. Actually it's a court supporting a corporate politician
which isn't a stretch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. It has precedence beyond this one case, one candidate...
So, I would suspend the judicial cynicism. Sometimes, the courts still do what the law requires.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Exactly. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 07:42 AM
Response to Original message
10. Sounding like the bush years already. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-16-08 07:42 AM
Response to Original message
11. 2 of the 3 judges were Republicans
and the third a Democrat.

The movie must be pretty bad if they voted unanimously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC