Felonious Advocacy: Only in America? - Friday, April 10, 2009
by: John Hamilton
You know, Congress has passed some mind-achingly horrid legislation on many occasions; but as putrid as some of those bills have been, I don’t think there has ever been one so odiferous that it caused complete mental confusion in a Supreme Court Justice before…except for one. And that one would be the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
Now, let me try to explain; I say try because this whole thing makes anyone with a normal mind subject to horrifying brain bubbles and total mental confusion – so if I don’t make it to the end of the piece, it’s been nice knowin’ ya.
Anyway, once upon a time in the nation which has freedom of speech enshrined within its Constitution, there appeared a bit of celluloid stupidity known as “Hillary: The Movie.” Produced by an outfit calling itself Citizens United, this “documentary,” however one-sided and bereft of intellectual heft, was shown on various video-on-demand cable channels in America. So how much does it cost to air a documentary like this on cable these days? Well, that would be about $1.2 million dollars and 5 years in prison.
Which leads us back to the aforementioned campaign reform act; according to this large hunk of bull apples, the documentary qualified as an illegal "electioneering communication." Yes, dear friends, in one fell swoop, Congress made it illegal for corporations, even non-profits, from sponsoring "any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication" that mentions a candidate for federal office within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.
WTF? The Federal Election Commission decided that Citizen’s United had produced a film that might actually make people think for a moment and consider the implications of their actions in an upcoming election. Yes, my dear friends, your Congress has made it illegal to be critical of a politician, or to be exposed to information that might make it easier for you to make up your mind come election-time.
The upshot to the FEC’s action was that a more even-handed doco, meaning one that had more nice things to say about Hillary than bad things, would have had no problem. Make a film that the FEC censors agree with and you’re free to live another day. Cross these bridge-guarding trolls, however, and there will be hell to pay.
So, back to that Supreme Court Justice I mentioned a little while ago; "I'm a little disoriented here," Justice Scalia said during last week's oral arguments in the case. "We are dealing with a constitutional provision, are we not? The one that I remember, which says ‘Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press?’"
Scalia's bewilderment was understandable, given that Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart had just claimed, apparently with a straight face, that the First Amendment does not bar the government from telling interest groups what videos they may post online or what books they may publish.
You know what? If this country really needs to pass some campaign reform bills, how about we pass one that says that anyone running for office can’t pass a reading comprehension test based upon the Constitution should be prohibited from setting foot inside the Beltway? Now that’s a law I could get behind 100%.
Comments: 2
JH,
As you well know, 'Felonious Advocacy' is alive and well in the UK too.
In the words of Frank;
'You are what you Is!'
greetings from North Street SW4
Great post. Too bad it's all true.
Restricting our access to information during a campaign, or restricting others from putting out information during a campaign, damn sure isn't campaign reform. Well, in the twisted fucking double-speak of politicians, I guess it probably is.
Post a comment
Your Name (50 characters max):
Your Comment (2,000 characters max):