5 ms·

Nobody was stopping them from making or distributing the movie. The case concerned restrictions on the airing of ads in a narrow window of time to prevent unlim

Nobody was stopping them from making or distributing the movie. The case concerned restrictions on the airing of ads in a narrow window of time to prevent unlimited use of money for electioneering purposes.

rayiner 12y ago
The case did not just concern "ads." Read the District Court's opinion: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2887803236861980893&q=citizens+united+&hl=en&as_sdt=20000006 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2887803236861980.... The District Court determined that the movie itself was "electioneering communication": > After viewing The Movie and examining the 73-page script at length, the court finds Mr. Morris's description to be accurate. The Movie is susceptible of no other interpretation than 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.[12] The 280*280 Movie is thus the functional equivalent of express advocacy. See WRTL, 127 S.Ct. at 2667 (setting out the "functional equivalent" standard). As such, it falls within the holding of McConnell sustaining, as against the First Amendment, § 203 insofar as it bars corporations from funding electioneering communications that constitute the functional equivalent of express advocacy. This essentially prevented the group from airing the movie on television within 30 days of the Democratic Primary (i.e. the very period during which one might want to air a movie advocating for or against a candidate!) The group would have faced civil and criminal penalties for airing the movie.
- nknighthb 12y ago
  > a movie advocating for or against a candidate! And you've just gotten to the heart of why it's different from Brown. Money corrupts politics and threatens democracy. There is no such problem with violent video games. If you think it's "insane" that we make this distinction, all I can say is that I think you're insane for not making it.
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    There was nothing about that movie that was related to "Money" per se. This wasn't the Koch brothers conspiring with George Soros. This was a couple of goofballs editing together some news footage and dubbing over some scary narration. That is, shit that happens on youtube every day. You know, speech. After the FEC has silenced all the little guys who dare criticize a candidate, do you really think the Kochs will be reduced to normal private citizens?
    - nknighthb 12y ago
      The case was all about money. CU wanted to pay to advertise and broadcast it on TV. How the movie was made is immaterial.
      - jessaustin 12y ago
        Remind us again, what's the problem with money and politics? Is the problem really that some people make money by commenting on politics? I guess you're thinking of like, Rush Limbaugh? Maybe Jon Stewart? Really? Please think more carefully. If money is like cooties, in that it ruins everything it touches, no matter what actual role it plays in the situation, then everything in this world is screwed up forever. But, that's not the case. The real problem with money in politics is the corruption of political, regulatory, administrative, and legislative decisions. When you fixate on stupid shit like some movie some dudes made, that idiocy is quite useful for those who benefit by that corruption.
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      > After the FEC has silenced all the little guys who dare criticize a candidate, do you really think the Kochs will be reduced to normal private citizens? Exactly. People vastly misunderstand Citizens United. Fox News is Rupert Murdoch buying airtime in bulk for his political speech. Unless you propose to shut it down along with every other privately owned media company, money is speech.
      - nknighthb 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

The case did not just concern "ads." Read the District Court's opinion: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2887803236861980893&q=citizens+united+&hl=en&as_sdt=20000006 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2887803236861980.... The District Court determined that the movie itself was "electioneering communication": > After viewing The Movie and examining the 73-page script at length, the court finds Mr. Morris's description to be accurate. The Movie is susceptible of no other interpretation than 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.[12] The 280*280 Movie is thus the functional equivalent of express advocacy. See WRTL, 127 S.Ct. at 2667 (setting out the "functional equivalent" standard). As such, it falls within the holding of McConnell sustaining, as against the First Amendment, § 203 insofar as it bars corporations from funding electioneering communications that constitute the functional equivalent of express advocacy. This essentially prevented the group from airing the movie on television within 30 days of the Democratic Primary (i.e. the very period during which one might want to air a movie advocating for or against a candidate!) The group would have faced civil and criminal penalties for airing the movie.

nknighthb 12y ago
> a movie advocating for or against a candidate! And you've just gotten to the heart of why it's different from Brown. Money corrupts politics and threatens democracy. There is no such problem with violent video games. If you think it's "insane" that we make this distinction, all I can say is that I think you're insane for not making it.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  There was nothing about that movie that was related to "Money" per se. This wasn't the Koch brothers conspiring with George Soros. This was a couple of goofballs editing together some news footage and dubbing over some scary narration. That is, shit that happens on youtube every day. You know, speech. After the FEC has silenced all the little guys who dare criticize a candidate, do you really think the Kochs will be reduced to normal private citizens?
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    The case was all about money. CU wanted to pay to advertise and broadcast it on TV. How the movie was made is immaterial.
    - jessaustin 12y ago
      Remind us again, what's the problem with money and politics? Is the problem really that some people make money by commenting on politics? I guess you're thinking of like, Rush Limbaugh? Maybe Jon Stewart? Really? Please think more carefully. If money is like cooties, in that it ruins everything it touches, no matter what actual role it plays in the situation, then everything in this world is screwed up forever. But, that's not the case. The real problem with money in politics is the corruption of political, regulatory, administrative, and legislative decisions. When you fixate on stupid shit like some movie some dudes made, that idiocy is quite useful for those who benefit by that corruption.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    > After the FEC has silenced all the little guys who dare criticize a candidate, do you really think the Kochs will be reduced to normal private citizens? Exactly. People vastly misunderstand Citizens United. Fox News is Rupert Murdoch buying airtime in bulk for his political speech. Unless you propose to shut it down along with every other privately owned media company, money is speech.
    - nknighthb 12y ago