The Supreme Court is rushing back from its summer break to rehear a case that could have important implications on the First Amendment and special interest money in political campaigns. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law was created to ban soft money contributions to political parties and put restrictions on radio and TV advertisements funded by corporations or unions that are aired close to an election. The Court is now ruling on broadcasts that are not 60-second attack ads funded by commercial interests or unions, but on more lengthy documentaries. McCain-Feingold restricts attack ads for 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election from paying for ads that mention a candidate. The new case involves a right wing documentary “Hillary: The Movie,” which is critical of then Senator Hillary Clinton. There are elements of issues concerning free speech and censorship in this story. It’s currently considered Constitutional to ban a book. This concept may apply to documentaries as well. Conservatives argue that banning Corporate spending on political documentaries constricts the First Amendment. If the close relationship between citizens or factions gives the appearance of corruption Congress can make legislation against these documentaries. There are three Conservatives on the Court who support the Corporation’s desires.

latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-campaign18-2009aug18,0,5524721.story

-Bill Gibbons
“I’m a Truth Addict, aw shit, I got a head rush.” -Rage Against the Machine