What McCain-Feingold Has Wrought

It has meant that judges now get to determine what is political speech and what isn't. Here, they've decided that a film about Hillary Clinton is campaign advertising subject to McCain Feingold. The film happens to be anti-Hillary.

The early reviews are in, and three federal judges appeared in agreement Wednesday that a movie lambasting Hillary Clinton seemed an awful lot like a 90-minute campaign advertisement.

Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, is challenging the nation's campaign finance laws, which require disclaimers on political advertisements and restrict when they can be broadcast. The group argues "Hillary: The Movie" and related television advertisements are not political advertising even though the New York senator is in the presidential race.

Attorney James Bopp argued that they should be considered "issue- oriented" speech because viewers aren't urged to vote for or against the Democrat.

"What's the issue?" asked Judge A. Raymond Randolph, a federal appeals judge sitting on a mixed panel to review the case.

"That Hillary Clinton is a European Socialist," Bopp replied. "That is an issue."

"Which has nothing to do with her campaign?" U.S District Judge Royce C. Lamberth interjected.

"Not specifically, no," Bopp replied.

"Once you say, 'Hillary Clinton is a European Socialist,' aren't you saying vote against her?"

Bopp disagreed because the movie did not use the word "vote."

"Oh, that's ridic...," Lamberth said, trailing off and ending the line of questioning.

Under campaign finance laws, Citizens United would be required to disclose its funding for the ads. It would also have to disclose donors and pay the costs of airing it on cable television from a political fund.

The movie is scheduled for two screenings in theaters, once each in California and Washington. It is also being sold on DVD. Neither of those methods are regulated under campaign laws. The advertisements, however, are scheduled to run during the peak presidential primary season and would be regulated.

Of course, you remember that Michael Moore purposefully released Farenheit 9/11 right before the 2004 elections, and yet that was okay. I'd say that there's a double standard if this film gets restricted, but that's the court system for you - it's all about your venue. That too is a flaw in McCain Feingold, which places far too much power in the courts and tramples all over the First Amendment.

You do remember the First Amendment, don't you? It is straight forward with respect to what Congress can or cannot do:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What part of Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech did McCain and all the other lemmings who approved this bill not understand?

McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform, which has done nothing to actually reduce the amount of money in politics, has created an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. The First Amendment was specifically written by the Founding Fathers with political speech in mind, and yet Congress approved it, President Bush signed it into law, and the Courts approved it. Just because they approved the law doesn't make it right - just look at how the Courts had no problem approving Dred Scott and separate but equal laws until Brown v. Board of Education and its progeny.

The fact that the courts get to decide whether something is political speech or not is abhorrent to the US Constitution and should be abhorrent to anyone who seeks to uphold the Constitution and the First Amendment.

We now have to live with the repercussions of this abomination, and I hope that the courts realize that they're supposed to uphold the Constitution of the United States and strike down this repellant law.