Home Subscribe Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri

Opinion
Feb. 12, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Campaign finance follies

Law again inhibiting First Amendment rights

David N. Bossie was a relentless investigator of the Clintons during the 1990s. More recently, he's been inspired by the example of leftist filmmaker Michael Moore.

"I saw the impact Moore was having. I realized the long-form documentary could be a powerful tool to deliver a political message," Mr. Bossie told the Los Angeles Times.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • LETTERS: Another baseless attack on public workers
  • EDITORIAL: Castle doctrine
  • EDITORIAL: Fired up over local shooting park
  • EDITORIAL: Islamic intimidation trumps liberty again
  • LETTERS: Regents' budget finally reflects reality
  • FROM OUR READERS: Not all Sun City Summerlin residents are NIMBYs
  • LETTERS: FAA's safety standards rigorous
  • EDITORIAL: Never mind
  • EDITORIAL: School funding, choice and results
  • LETTERS: What about mental health funding?



    • So Mr. Bossie has now released a 90-minute documentary on one of his favorite targets, the junior senator from New York. "Hillary: The Movie" features interviews with Clinton critics including Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich and Dick Morris. "If you want to hear about the Clinton scandals of the past and present, you have it here!" proclaims the Web site of Bossie's group, Citizens United.

    Given America's tradition of -- and constitutional guarantee concerning -- free political speech, even those who favor Ms. Clinton's candidacy can surely agree anyone who wants to learn about or see that movie should have a right to do so -- right?

    Not exactly.

    In its gorilla-like exertions to "get money out of our elections," one provision of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law makes it illegal to use corporate or union money for "any broadcast, cable or satellite communication" if it "refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office" within 30 days of a primary election or a convention or within 60 days of a general election.

    That stipulated "blackout period," as it is known, has covered much of the nation for the past month due to the modern proliferation of presidential primaries.

    The 2002 law -- sponsored by the current front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, Arizona Sen. John McCain -- covers nonprofit corporations as well as moneymaking firms. And its provisions are triggered by the mere mention of the candidate's name.

    But, "How can you advertise this movie without mentioning the name 'Hillary'?" asks James Bopp Jr., a First Amendment lawyer representing Citizens United.

    In December, the group went to court seeking an order that would shield it from the law so it could run 30-second ads for the movie on Fox News and other television outlets. Mr. Bopp argued that what he termed "core political speech" deserved full free-speech protection under the First Amendment.

    The high court has whittled down some of the provisions of McCain-Feingold -- ruling 5-4 last year, for instance, that Wisconsin Right to Life Committee could broadcast radio ads urging its senators to support President Bush's judicial nominees. "The First Amendment requires us to err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

    But the court has so far failed to toss out the regulatory scheme, entirely.

    A three-judge appeals court panel gave Mr. Bossie's group a split decision on Jan. 15, ruling brief ads for the movie could be broadcast because "they proposed a commercial transaction -- buy the DVD of the movie," but that the film itself cannot be broadcast on television because it's in essence a campaign ad, telling "the electorate that Sen. Clinton is unfit for office ... and that viewers should vote against her." (Oh, the horror.)

    But even brief ads for the DVD are still subject to the law, the appeals court ruled -- Citizens United must disclose who donated money to support the film.

    And that's a provision the group has refused to accept.

    Actually, disclosure is not a bad idea. It's true many of the founding fathers wrote anonymously -- the Federalist Papers come to mind. But it's useful for voters to know who's financing a political campaign.

    Nonetheless, any attempt to "balance" such goals against the constitutional right to criticize our politicians and would-be office-holders must come down on the side of free speech.

    If Ms. Clinton's supporters -- or Mr. Bush's -- find such "documentaries" to contain partial truths and scurrilous charges, the answer is more speech, not a government muzzle to protect the powerful from scrutiny.

    Some will see irony in the fact that a more widespread airing of "Hillary: The Movie" could help the electoral chances of Sen. McCain, who co-authored the bill that's keeping the Hillary "hit piece" off the air.

    In fact, the pathos here goes beyond such minor poetic justice. The problem for smaller-government conservatives now is that McCain-Feingold is only one instance in which their likely standard-bearer, John McCain, has compromised limited-government principles, employing the mailed fist of government in a misguided attempt to "fix" a perceived problem resulting from "too much freedom."

    It doesn't matter whose ox is being gored. McCain-Feingold is substantially unconstitutional and should be tossed out on its ear.

    As Bradley A. Smith, a former FEC chairman and critic of the campaign laws, told the Times this week: "This shows the danger of trying to regulate all these things. Do we really want to go down the road of having a federal agency decide whether you can broadcast ads for a movie or a book?"



    Leave Your Comment 12 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    David Johann wrote on February 12, 2008 11:32 PM: At 11:33 “hmmm” wrote: “The coolerst [sic] thing about a billary [sic] presidency will be the first assassination attempt since the early 1980's “

    What an idiot.

    Whomever is posting as “hmmm“ is stupid. Way stupid. You can threaten me all you like, nobody cares about me except my mom and my cat, but threaten a presidential candidate (??). As I said: the poster is stupid.

    Then, an “uh-oh” fear crossed the mind of whomever is posting as “hmmm,” and just one minute later: “’hmmm’ wrote on February 12, 2008 11:34 AM: I meant coolest. And no, not MY [assassination] attempt, but somebody much more patriotic.”

    In the face of this I did my patriotic duty: I telephoned the Las Vegas office of the US Secret Service to report a possible threat against Hillary Clinton.

    I thank them for their professionalism. The receptionist was very professional as was the agent who took my complaint. The agent asked if I worked for the RJ and I said “no, I just like to argue with those guys (other posters) online.” The agent laughed.

    Hopefully, “hmmm” will answer for his or her severe, online indiscretion. Meantime, the RJ editors have mucho rethinking to do. Anybody want the number to LV Secret Service? Look it up online like I did.

    Maybe “hmmm” will come back to post here and describe the interior of the Las Vegas, Secret Service wing of whatever federal building they occupy.

    And now, from me, a scolding:

    Has the atmosphere of the RJ editorials contributed to wackos feeling free enough to threaten presidential candidates? Interesting question.

    P.S. Dear Secret Service: call me with any questions / concerns. You have my number. Please remember I’m on Pacific Time.


    tim wrote on February 12, 2008 06:35 PM: lets all sheild poor little hillary from a little movie,boo hoo. i thought she had thick skin to go along with her 400 pant suits. not to mention it is unconstitutional,i say show me the ads!


    David Johann wrote on February 12, 2008 04:37 PM: More on David N. Bossie:

    "In 1992, Bossie was working for the right-wing organization Citizens United (the group that "invented" Willie Horton). As executive director of Citizens United chairman Floyd Brown's "Presidential Victory Committee," he used taped conversations allegedly between then-Governor Bill Clinton and Gennifer Flowers as part of an advertising and "800" number scheme to smear Clinton. The tapes have since been discredited because they were edited and doctored. A direct mailing from Citizens United using this material was made to look as if it were an "official" mailing from Bush campaign -- and the Bush people alerted the FEC to the mailings in an effort to stop them!"

    "Bossie spent a great deal of time in 1992 in Arkansas, digging dirt on Clinton. David Corn reports in the May 6, 1998 issue of Salon that 'at one point, Bossie got into a fistfight in Arkansas with a private detective who claimed Bossie had welshed on a $10,000 payment for anti-Clinton material.'"

    "That same year, Bossie harassed the family of a suicide victim. "An anonymous and untraceable letter" was faxed to some 30 news organizations "claiming Clinton had had an affair with a former law student who committed suicide 15 years ago," an "emotionally distraught young woman, seven-months pregnant" named Susan Coleman."

    http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1055&Itemid=2

    "As Media Matters for America has previously noted, Bossie was fired in 1998 from his job as chief investigator for the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight -- which was investigating alleged Clinton White House campaign finance abuses -- for his role in releasing selectively edited transcripts of former Clinton administration official Webster Hubbell's prison conversations."

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200405200005


    John F wrote on February 12, 2008 02:08 PM: Mr. Green,

    Prior restraint on speech is not allowed. If someone libels you, you may seek redress in court. You may only do so, however, after the libelous speech has been uttered.


    David N. Bossie wrote on February 12, 2008 01:31 PM: It's interesting to take a different look at David N. Bossie compared to the way the Review Journal paints the man:

    "He has been sharply criticized by both Democrats and Republicans. James Carville said of him, "he made collective fools out of about 80 percent of the national press corps." President George Bush urged citizens not to support his campaigns, saying, "We will do whatever we can to stop any filthy campaign tactics" in a newsletter to 85,000 Republican contributors. Bush also filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission regarding one TV advertisement."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bossie


    hmmm wrote on February 12, 2008 11:34 AM: I meant coolest. And no, not MY attempt, but somebody much more patriotic.


    hmmm wrote on February 12, 2008 11:33 AM: The coolerst thing about a billary presidency will be the first assassination attempt since the early 1980's


    douglas wrote on February 12, 2008 11:13 AM: coolest deception this week is that the clintons will reveal their their tax returns including the campaign contributors, only *after* being elected.

    might be a passal of contributors' names best expressed in hanzi characters, like the last time. no sense in bringing the electorate out of their comas before the election.


    Michael Green wrote on February 12, 2008 11:12 AM: The question nobody is asking in all of this is whether the material contained within these advertisements, films, etc., is libelous or slanderous. If either can be proved, should the libeler or slanderer be immune on the grounds that the First Amendment protects free speech? We really should be studying those laws more carefully. Of course, that would mean almost a daily lawsuit against the R-J editorial page, but Stephens certainly can afford the legal expenses, despite being so onerously taxed.


    Penny wrote on February 12, 2008 07:59 AM: Interesting idea for a film. Good lineup of right-wing scholars and intellectuals. Kind of like interviewing Goehring, Himmler, and Speer about how corrupt and criminal the Hindenberg government was.


    Read All Comments