Supreme Court Examines Application of Campaign Finance Rules to Advertising for "Hillary - The Movie"

This morning the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In the suit, the makers of "Hillary - The Movie" ,a film presenting a harshly critical view of the career and policy positions of HIllary Rodham Clinton, challenge the application of the "electioneering communication" restrictions of the McCain Feingold campaign finance statute to the film and related ads as then Senator Clinton was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.  On SCOTUSblog Lyle Denniston recounts the morning's oral argument and identifies considerable receptivity among the Justices to protecting the film and its ads from the reach of the Act. This protection would come in the development of a coverage exception that would shield some communications from the limitations imposed on the activities of advocacy groups during a political campaign. Denniston's helpful argument preview notes that in its Supreme Court briefs Citizens United widened the scope of its attack to revive a challenge to the constitutional legitimacy of campaign finance restrictions aimed at the speech of corporations, an question Denniston's assessment of the oral argument suggests the Court seems unlikely to address.      

The New York Times and Washington Post provide pre-argument analysis of the issues raised in the case, and election law scholar RIchard Hasen provides his assessment of the case's significance for the future of campaign finance law.  Further details and filings in the case are available from SCOTUSwiki. 

JFB