June 29, 2009
Posted: June 29th, 2009 01:00 PM ET
Monday the Supreme Court deferred a ruling in a case involving a documentary on Hillary Clinton.  The Court will rehear argument in the case in the fall.
Monday the Supreme Court deferred a ruling in a case involving a documentary on Hillary Clinton. The Court will rehear argument in the case in the fall.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it will reargue an important campaign finance reform case dealing with a scathing documentary about former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The justices put off an expected ruling in the case, and will rehear the issues on September 9. It is unusual for the high court to return early from its summer recess to hear an appeal. The court normally begins its fall term in early October.

The justices apparently could not reach a conclusion on whether the film was subject to federal oversight regarding when and where it could be shown in an election year.

At issue was whether the 90-minute "Hillary: The Movie" - as well as television ads to promote the film - should have been subject to strict campaign finance laws on political advocacy, or was instead a constitutionally protected form of commercial speech.

It is unclear whether high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed in time to hear the case. If not, just eight justices will hear the appeal.

Filed under: Hillary Clinton • Popular Posts • Supreme Court


Shonie   June 29th, 2009 2:41 pm ET

So libertarians who don't care if there is gay marriage are unsympathetic and emotionless? Hmmm... Yeah, you are truly an idiot. Then again, you're from a state that can't afford its bills, so I guess I should expect too much from its education system.

Jason   June 29th, 2009 2:34 pm ET

Violation of the 1st Amendment. Say NO TO CENSORSHIP

Educate yourselves before you open your mouth and just let the words fall out   June 29th, 2009 2:30 pm ET

I support everyone's right to free speech, but I don't support using tax-payer money for political gain by either party! THAT is what the issue is and for all of you trying to cloud it with other crap . . . STOP!

beth   June 29th, 2009 2:23 pm ET

Oh I can't wait to see what these creative geniuses come up with.

Jefe   June 29th, 2009 2:22 pm ET

The problem with political movies in an election cycle, is that they are not required to use verified facts. Also, by making a movie where you are obviously portraying an active candidate, even if calling him or her by a different name, for example, you can use complete fiction. Unfortunately, a large segment of the population will believe the intentional implied falsehoods, potentially altering the fate of the US by foreign or corporate interests backing election-altering movies.

I can see Canada from my house!   June 29th, 2009 2:21 pm ET

@ Amazed in M:

I'm amazed you claim to be from NY, since once you step out of NYC, you are in one of the more conservative areas of the country. The ONLY reason why the GOP has been driven out of one of its formerly strongest areas is because the state GOP is run by a class of incompetent fools who favored ideology over performance. We gave the country Jack Kemp, Al D'Amato and Rufy Giuliani, to name a few: are those men liberals?

Steve   June 29th, 2009 2:21 pm ET

Sure, the documentary shows one of the biggest case of election campaign fraud in history, BY HER, so she wants to ban future documentaries. Great answer.

I was completely dissappointed in Obama for making her Secretary of State. She should be in JAIL.

Catherine   June 29th, 2009 2:20 pm ET

MathewDetroit–you're an idiot. Obama almost lost to Hillary and would have if it wasn't for the criminals at ACORN. Her position now as secretary of State is the most highest honor anyone can hold in office...she is doing her job unlike Obama who is needs to stay off the TV and do his. Her approval rating is off the chart and I hope Obama enjoys his TV celebrity role because he's in it for only 4 years.

Catherine   June 29th, 2009 2:19 pm ET

MathewDetroit–you're an idiot. Obama almost lost to Hillary and would have if it wasn't for the criminals at ACORN. Her position now as secretary of State is the most highest honor anyone can hold in office...she is doing her job unlike Obama who is needs to stay of the TV and do his. Her approval rating is o the chart and I hope Obama enjoys his TV celebrity role because he's in it for only 4 years.

Educate yourselves before you open your mouth and just let the words fall out   June 29th, 2009 2:13 pm ET

@ dan in Tucson AZ June 29th, 2009 11:10 am ET

Is this America, or not?
In America we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Those that oppose the documentary can boycott it, or come up with a rebuttal piece. That is the American way.

AND we have campaign finance laws. That TOO is the American way, nimrod!

Don   June 29th, 2009 2:11 pm ET

After reading through the comments on this article, I can see that the majority of people that left them have absolutely no idea what is going on around them. Does anyone at all really understand what this is about or do you all just want to argue about a bunch of BS that doesn't exist?

Pay attention, but also try to use your heads, please.

Educate yourselves before you open your mouth and just let the words fall out   June 29th, 2009 2:10 pm ET

@ MatthewDetroit

Secratary of State is a "dead-end job" in your opinion???? Wow. Just wow.

Me in Big D   June 29th, 2009 2:09 pm ET

@Patriot – I agree wholeheartedly!!! If the liberal, biased main-stream media had done its job-things would have been far different. When they wake-up and turn on him, and they will, it will be with a vengeance and I, for one of thousands, can't wait. I just hope it won't be too late!

Educate yourselves before you open your mouth and just let the words fall out   June 29th, 2009 2:08 pm ET

@ AK907

Really??? Please name the 14 states Acorn is being investigated in and please name the news source you got this information from.

Greg   June 29th, 2009 1:56 pm ET

Where was all of Hillary's gusto to block movies like this in 2004 when Michael Moore belched up "Fahrenheit: 9/11"?

Doug, New Jersey   June 29th, 2009 1:54 pm ET

Ha ha, if this is a campaign finance reform case, then what was the multiple month long Obama infomercial on cnn, msnbc, pbs, abc, cbs, nbc, ny times, washington post, la times.....

I call multiple lying hateful libbie leg tinglers to the stand-lol!

slowgun   June 29th, 2009 1:52 pm ET

@illinoistom June 29th, 2009 12:55 pm ET

Clearly, this is a violation of the First Amendment. Even the L.A. Times pointed out that they (a corporately owned newspaper) can publish stories critical of candidates up to election day, so a film documentary is entitled to the same protections.

-------------------------–

illinoistom, Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Yes, the L.A. Times can print whatever they want. But if they are going to use public campaign funds (tax payer's money) to do it, then they have to follow the rules and laws that apply...learn before you post, please...thank you!

history repeats   June 29th, 2009 1:49 pm ET

Hugo

my god anybody that thinks the bad things that were said about bush was "propaganda" is absolutely out of their mind. how can you see anything that bush did as just? now we can understand howthe german people could have rationalized what hitler did.

Darth Vadik, CA   June 29th, 2009 1:47 pm ET

I really don't know why the conservatives don't like the Clintons....

....well maybe I do, the Clintons are very very right leaning "Liberals", on to of that they do use Republican thug tactics in their campaigns, heck, If you said anything to Bill during his campaign you would have the whole Clinton entourage on your butt so fast your head would spin...

hence, since Clintons are almost Republicans, use Republican tactics, the conservatives see what they hate about themselves in Clintons...

I know I went over most of conservative’s heads with this analysis, but I don't expect much from them anyway...

...just a thought.

Hugo   June 29th, 2009 1:46 pm ET

Where do these left wing bloggers on CNN come from, Mars? It is obvious that they have been beyond compromised with regard to thinking a single logical thought in any coherent manner. America is now waking up to what this Administration is really about, control of the populous through financial oppression. It isn't going to happen for Barry in 2012 and in 2016 Michelle is not going to be next in line, they will have joined Jimmy Carter at the peanut ranch. The economy will continue to be depressed, taxes will sky rocket, inflation will hit, double digit unemployment is already upon us. Wait until unemployment visits your home, we are cutting back yet the government continues to spend. Do you really think once the voting blocks figure out they've been duped and they realize the only one with a job is an over-payed government employee they will vote for these bozos? Get real...

history repeats   June 29th, 2009 1:44 pm ET

MatthewDetroit

a dead end job? see this is how the republicans mind works. they think the presidency is a popularity contest. hillary has a dead end job? and she should be angry at john edwards because he took some of her votes? what is wrong with you people? this movie was paid for by conservative politicians. and its not about hillarys OPINION of it, its about the validity of saying this is an independant movie made by "the people" or its just conservative propoganda created by people that would benefit from bashing her, which it is!!!

Ryan Indy   June 29th, 2009 1:41 pm ET

Let the public watch the movie and let them be the Judge. Why was Micheal Moore able to release 2-3 critical movies about President Bush but yet if the shoe is on the other foot then the movie is sent to the Supreme Court. That is the difference between Republicans and Democrats, Republicans believe in free speech and practice it , democrats just lecture and only believe in it if it helps there pathetic cause. HYPOCRISY!!!!!!!

Michael K, Baltimore MD   June 29th, 2009 1:40 pm ET

AK907 has no understanding of the cases against ACORN workers or of the required procedures for submitting completed voter registration cards. I doubt if he has a clear understanding of what protected speech is or how it is protected.

Never mind, express your opinion anyway, regardless of factual foundations. You have a right to do that. That way the rest of us can identify the non-thinkers in the group.

lynn in NM   June 29th, 2009 1:36 pm ET

If she can't take the heat, she should get out of the kitchen. "Scathing" documentary. Does that mean the truth was actually told? Heaven forbid.

Sandy   June 29th, 2009 1:36 pm ET

Hillary Clinton is the last one who should be talking about campaign finance reform. Hillary and Bill Clinton (allegedly) swindled film director Stan Lee and his company out of millions of dollars during Hilary's run for governor of NY. They also (allegedly) broke campaign finance rules by taking a donation from Cher that was over the limit. StanLee (allegedly) has a recording of this, in which Clinton (allegedly) admits this. The case never made it to court because it was thrown out by a judge who was appointed by – Bill Clinton.

tim   June 29th, 2009 1:35 pm ET

Acorn is not being investigated for voter fraud. they are being investigated for voter registration fraud. HUGE difference. Hillary is washed up anyway, so who cares...
bluecub

Bill Sampson   June 29th, 2009 1:31 pm ET

Dear "Amazed in M":

Have lived in NYC for 15 years and voted for Hillary twice. But thanks for your interesting comment.

Amazed in M   June 29th, 2009 1:20 pm ET

Actually "slowgun" I don't hate her. I dislike ALL politicians on BOTH sides. I only response to how someone said she was an effective Senator for NY. At least Chuckie "I cant say away from a camera or microphone" Shummer can be tied to actual legislation.

Since you claim to be a fellow NY'er.... what legislature regarding this state has anything to do with her? Give me the long list......

I am not criticizing her... I was criticizing all you rabid liberals who will go on and on about how "effective" a Senator she was when she did nothing.

I also find it funny how you respond to questions not posed to you :-)

Too True For You   June 29th, 2009 1:19 pm ET

@Tess "free speech is only legal when it is positive towards liberals – any other free speech that is positive towards conservatives is libel, unlawful, and should be stopped – can anybody say DOUBLE STANDARD HERE???"
----------------------------
Naw, it only looks like a double standard because the conservative attack videos are usually libelous, misrepresentative, and distorted. Can you say "Swift Boat"?

And Joe, yeah, I cannot stand Michael Moore either. His hyperbolic rehtoric is about on the same level as the Fox "Conservative Shill" News Network. 99% pure distorted junk derived from a 1% of truth.

Joe, Georgia   June 29th, 2009 1:19 pm ET

It will be interesting to see what the new activist majority on the court does with this issue. In the New Haven case, they chose to overturn the policy decision of the City and the decisions of two lower courts to create new law at the Supreme Court level. This new majority decided to use their power to change the law of the land to suite their philosophical position not strictly interpret the law of the land or the Constitution.

Hugo   June 29th, 2009 1:17 pm ET

I can't help myself...this is the kind of double sided treatment we are still seeing out of the left. The left smear machine will besmirch anyone that dare oppose their view however when the shoe is on the other foot it is completely different. How about Obama and Clinton chastising Honduras for giving their President the boot. He of course is a socialist and was caught by the people of Honduras ignoring their constitution. I find it humorous and alarming that the US would do anything other than support his displacement, unless of course it makes them nervous, hmmmm?!

Pres. Obama   June 29th, 2009 1:16 pm ET

Apparently Darth Vadik is both.

Paul from Phoenix   June 29th, 2009 1:16 pm ET

This movie should be handled just like Farenheit 9/11. That movie was equally as political, and it was promoted in an attempt to influence the election of 2004.

The movie was not paid for fully by Michael Moore. The Weinsteins aided with promotions and other costs. Hence, those could be looked upon as donations.

If one is allowed, then both should be allowed. As far as I am concerned, and type of campaign financing law is a direct assault against the 1st Ammendment. Why should the government tell me who i can and can't support financially in any election?

Penny   June 29th, 2009 1:15 pm ET

My goodness. We have only seen Bush raked through the coals for 8 years, and the Clinton's can't take 90 minutes of exposure? Please....

Obamination   June 29th, 2009 1:15 pm ET

The left will be deposed as Barak is shown for the fraud he is. Sadly, Hillary had to "break her arm" to stay in the headlines. Barak's been doing nothing but carefully scripted photo ops. Where's all the sit down talks Mr. Big Shot? Why haven't you sat down with Ahmadoodoohead and whoever is pretending to be Kim in North Korea? Why isn't the money being spent like you said to fix the economy? It's because it's being pocketed while everyone flounders. Too bad Madoff can't share a cell with you guys. Wait, maybe he can....

johnny   June 29th, 2009 1:14 pm ET

@ Joe June 29th, 2009 12:36 pm ET

If you guys have a problem with lies and distortions, I hope you get this worked up every time Michael Moore comes out with a new film.
_________________________________________________

Michael Moore's films are privately funded.

Marcus Tate   June 29th, 2009 1:14 pm ET

You know what Clinton did for NY? She gave a sweetheart deal to TATA Consuting, the #1 outsourcer of US jobs to India. She set them up with corporate offices in downtown Buffalo. She did it while 9/11 was in the news, and the story never even got a decent headline.

As someone in the IT industry who is already fighting an unfair battle against foreign workers, I am now an enemy of Clinton for life.

Fair is Fair   June 29th, 2009 1:10 pm ET

Lacrosse Mom said "Faux News= GOP propaganda network!"
______________________________

And MSNBC=Liberal propaganda network.

So take those 2 networks out of the equation and you have CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS. Fair and balanced? I think not.

fastrbud   June 29th, 2009 1:10 pm ET

Let the stupid neo-conservative have their lies. A movie that tries so hard to smear is subject to law suits from those offended. They are a fringe element that only listens to the talk radio hate-mongers. They believe it's true no matter what the facts indicate. Maybe Gov. Sanford will have some time to help?

Michael Moore   June 29th, 2009 1:09 pm ET

Apparently one man's lie is another's free speech.

rachel   June 29th, 2009 1:09 pm ET

What a bunch of garbage. I don't want my money used for political ads or movies unless I okay it or donate it. These people are mad.

suz   June 29th, 2009 1:08 pm ET

Nero, you are so right on target. I would have thought that the American public would see the writing on the wall. We are being decieved on both sides. While we argue and fight about the left and right, they are all taking away our rights, money and freedoms. This is about both parties, money and power. We are nothing more to both parties than money. Welcome to the new world order. Expect to see the American dollar go away in the next two years. Expect to be micro-chiped when that happens. Forget about your rights they no longer exist. Haliburton is still building detention centers for FEMA(?) as we speak. People get a clue!

NY Dem   June 29th, 2009 1:08 pm ET

I wish these people would leave Hillary and Bill Clinton alone. This behavior is not good for our country. PERIOD!!!

stevie   June 29th, 2009 1:07 pm ET

ha,

there are millions of things our tax dollars are wasted on............

why do we care about a movie if it tells the tuth...............

the last election was bought anyway

cant we all just get along

WhoCares?   June 29th, 2009 1:07 pm ET

You can tell who the dittoheads are :

The ones that didn't read the article to know what the issue is even about.

They have had Rush, O'Reilly and Hannity doinfgtheir thinking for them for so long they have forgotten.

Zeb   June 29th, 2009 1:07 pm ET

MAtthew in Detroit: "...Face the facts. Barack wooped you ..." Not true. Obama stole the party nomination like the pathetic lying politician he is. Can't wait to see the film about him that's sure to come along...Thankfully he'll be one and done. PUMA Hillary 2012!

MatthewDetroit   June 29th, 2009 1:07 pm ET

The fact that she is blaming her loss to Barack on the conservatives is just plain funny.
Get a clue lady, that is why you lost. You dont have a clue. You got outplayed and outmaneuvered by Barack. He ran right over you and you still dont understand why.

Jon   June 29th, 2009 1:05 pm ET

Hahaha. The second you talk about ACORN, you lose all credibility. Total lies made up by right-wing talking heads. Sorry.

Elmo   June 29th, 2009 1:05 pm ET

Will the courts also review Clintons violation of fund raising laws, and the case by Stan Lee against the Clintons?

illinoistom   June 29th, 2009 1:04 pm ET

There are a number of comments saying tax money was used produce the film. I haven't found any evidence of that, what are your sources?

David E.   June 29th, 2009 1:03 pm ET

I see the liberal's are at the old game of yapping.

Micheal Moore can make movies that are fiction, Al Gore the same, plus info-tainmnet from the movie 'W'....and these are called the 'truth'.

Yet any movies that are contrary you see the vile hate spewing left react like tempermental children.

Only in the USA can actors/actresses talk with their self-imposed importance (Do you see actors in North Korea/ China/ Cuba/ Germany/ Russia etc... talk as if to influence national policy?) Of course not....they are just actors.

Once You Vote Black: PUMA where are you?   June 29th, 2009 1:03 pm ET

Oh come one AK907 being investigated is not the same as convicted, and make funds available to non profits is not the same as giveing ACORN money. So dry up or speak facts.

Rick Leonhard   June 29th, 2009 1:01 pm ET

Interesting not even a mention about the reversal by the Supreme Court of Sotomayor's ruling against the Connecticut firefighers! There's no agenda at CNN.

AK907   June 29th, 2009 12:58 pm ET

The most hilarious and interesting aspect of this stroy it that most of the liberals commenting on this story are complaining about misuse of tax dollars. Well what about ACORN, they are being investigated in 14 different states for voter fraud and missallocation of resources, but the Democrats in congress are still channeling tax dollars into their coffers. HYPOCRITES.

MatthewDetroit   June 29th, 2009 12:56 pm ET

Hillary,
Maybe you should be mad at the lying cheat John Edwards who would have syphoned off some of your votes. He is the reason you lost to Barack, not a tape that was made as a commercial exercise about how bad you are.
Face the facts. Barack wooped you and now he gave you a dead end job where no one sees or hears from you.
HE is running again in 2012 and Michelle is running in 2016.
You BLEW it babe.

illinoistom   June 29th, 2009 12:55 pm ET

Clearly, this is a violation of the First Amendment. Even the L.A. Times pointed out that they (a corporately owned newspaper) can publish stories critical of candidates up to election day, so a film documentary is entitled to the same protections.

Once You Vote Black: PUMA where are you?   June 29th, 2009 12:53 pm ET

I wonder if we will see an uptic in PUMA activity as a result of this, or is that movement dead?

J.Crobuzon   June 29th, 2009 12:53 pm ET

CK, if the court decides that you can pass off election ads as movies, next election year we'll see NAILIN' PALIN in every theater in this country. "Robin Williams IS Grampa McCain in THE REAL McCAINS." GW BUSH: the Movie. 98% of comedians are foul-mouthed liberals, and the other two guys are Jeff Foxworthy and Larry the Cable whatever; this means conservatives will be at a huge disadvantage.

dan in tucson, glad you feel that way about my new gay porno movie TUCSON DAN. I think it will be bigger than BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. We used your name and address, but you can just sue me and my multi-million dollar company if you are offended. Did I mention the Russian Mob owns 20% of my company? Luckily, free speech is probably on your side unless the court decides for those filmmakers.

Albert   June 29th, 2009 12:53 pm ET

Commercial Speech cannot get Constitutional Protection, if it was financed by TAX DOLLARS.

Ren from Baltimore   June 29th, 2009 12:52 pm ET

This case covers whether the "movie" was indeed a lengthy campaign ad. If it was, the money associated with it would be subject to campaign contribution and expenditure laws.

Besides, both right and left leaners: Freedom of speech allows you to talk trash about my wife, my kids, my friends and neighbors? Since when?? What did you think of those sleazy ads in 2004 attacking John McCain's military record? Were those ads a matter of free speech? Nope.

slowgun   June 29th, 2009 12:51 pm ET

@Amazed in M June 29th, 2009 12:34 pm ET

….Barney the Dinosaur could run as a democRAT in NY and get elected.

----------------------------

Funny seeing as how the republicans have had control of the state legislature for the last 40 years!"

She only used this state as a stepping stone. So unless you are from NY don't dare spout that she was effective."

------------------------------

I'm from New York...She did a great job as her high marks by a non-partisn watchdog organization shows

But, Amazed, you can still hate her just because she is a Democrat, if you want too

ThinkAboutIt   June 29th, 2009 12:50 pm ET

ck: There is no censorship going on by the "liberal left". The issue at hand is whether tax dollars were used to make this movie, thus making it accountable to campaign finance laws.

Stuffit   June 29th, 2009 12:50 pm ET

Sniffit June 29th, 2009 12:04 pm ET

"THIS IS ABOUT OUR TAX DOLLARS BEING USING FRAUDULENTLY. "

Ding ding ding…we have a winner! Please step away from the keyboard if you don't understand the above.
+======================================================+

If only this passion would be spread across the broad spectrum of issues where these same abuses are occurring could we all step away from our keyboards.

How many loopholes have been found and exploited by BOTH SIDES? Yet again, an example of poorly written tax code. Or, is it purposely written in a sub-standard manner? The tax code is simply a vehicle for politicians to manipulate certain demographics to parry favor with them and win votes. If it weren't, there wouldn't have been over 16,000 changes to the code since 1986.

With all of the recent legislation Congress has passed, it has to be a sieve in comparison.

katiec   June 29th, 2009 12:47 pm ET

If this film was payed for by taxpayer money than there should be many questions asked. I, for one, do not support or want films cutting any politician down payed for out of my taxes.
This issue needs to be addressed as is a clear, fraudulent misuse of funds if our money was used.

Patriot   June 29th, 2009 12:47 pm ET

I love how CNN describes the documentary as "scathing". "Hillary: The Movie" was "scathing" for liberals because it revealed too many damaging FACTS about her. If a similarly "scathing" documentary came out about Obama in time before election day, this country might have been spared a grave mistake.

Nero   June 29th, 2009 12:46 pm ET

Both parties are in the bag of the bankers.I love the smell of Rome burning in the morning as the right and the left argue about who set the fire.

Hugo   June 29th, 2009 12:44 pm ET

Gee, where were they when the leftist propaganda machine was working 24/7 on the Bush Administration? I wonder what she may have to hide, I mean now that her support for the Honduran socialist has evidenced itself does she really have anymore to hide regarding a free society?

manny   June 29th, 2009 12:40 pm ET

making a movie is not a problem but making a movie with lies and stoking up hatred against a political opponent is another. when will they produce FROST CHENEY, CHENEY: THE MOVIE, and what are conservatives saying about the last 8years, how come they find it easy to make movies about hillary when they have despicable people amongst them.
now, because of people like these [that could select bush twice], the world now think americans are gullible, narrow minded, unintelligent, to the extent foreigners defraud us easily. how sensible are we? fighting a war without budget considerations, labelling and imprisoning people to legitimize a fraud war, torturing people to find links to the war in iraq and alqaeda, no bid contracts to harliburton, christain leaders that never prayed in Jesus name and yet they are called christain conservative republican patriots! this is laughable, isn't it?
can someone tell me what would have happened to america if republicans were allowed to continue after Bush/cheney.

tess   June 29th, 2009 12:39 pm ET

free speech is only legal when it is positive towards liberals – any other free speech that is positive towards conservatives is libel, unlawful, and should be stopped – can anybody say DOUBLE STANDARD HERE???

Dutch/Bad Newz, VA   June 29th, 2009 12:38 pm ET

Since Hillary left 18,000,000 cracks in the ceiling for women to bust thru, Sarah Palin should be speaking up about this. This just goes to show you that she's not ready for the big league. This is an assault on free speech.

Joe   June 29th, 2009 12:36 pm ET

If you guys have a problem with lies and distortions, I hope you get this worked up every time Michael Moore comes out with a new film.

Pragmatic   June 29th, 2009 12:36 pm ET

"We need more information than simply what the candidates want us to see.... :

Great – as long as it is factual, provable information and not a fabric of lies .... we have the actual film of GW reading My Pet Goat and can draw our own opinion about the look in his eyes... even the movie didn't show all 11 minutes ... too painful.

Susan   June 29th, 2009 12:34 pm ET

If the file had been released at any other time, except during the heat of the primaries, I would agree that it represents free speech. However, the timing of the release, takes it out of the realm of free speech and into the arena of political campaigining. It should be subject to campaign laws.

Amazed in M   June 29th, 2009 12:34 pm ET

Bill Sampson wrote-

"Then Hillary becomes an effective and admired U.S. Senator from New York (reelected in a landslide in 2006)"

Are you serious? Are you from NY? She did absolutely nothing for this state. She was elected by a landslide.... because NY is one of the most leftist states in the union. With that in mind, how could she not win? That is exactly why she ran for the Senatorship here. This is a state full of a few rich, a few hundred thousand middle class and millions of freeloaders. Guaranteed votes bought by government handouts....Barney the Dinosaur could run as a democRAT in NY and get elected.

She only used this state as a stepping stone. So unless you are from NY don't dare spout that she was effective.

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ   June 29th, 2009 12:33 pm ET

Given the corporate sponsors and the clearly anti-Hillary Clinton view, is it any surprise that it has been found not really a documentary? It is like the book Unfit for Command about Kerry. It is clearly a biased view and of questionable motives.

slowgun   June 29th, 2009 12:32 pm ET

@Sniffit June 29th, 2009 12:04 pm ET

"THIS IS ABOUT OUR TAX DOLLARS BEING USING FRAUDULENTLY. "

Ding ding ding…we have a winner! Please step away from the keyboard if you don't understand the above.

-------------------------–

no, actually it is about wether or not election laws / rules were broken.
Sniffit, do you ever take the time to learn the truth and facts about something before you post you comments? Or do you just jump at every chance to show us all what a "ditto head" you are?

Georgian   June 29th, 2009 12:27 pm ET

I mean, look at the cast people. This will be an unintentional comedy.

Ron in Indiana   June 29th, 2009 12:25 pm ET

I have seen this movie and must say that I see why the Clintons dont want it out.

Brian - Trinidad   June 29th, 2009 12:23 pm ET

America,get over it! The Clintons won you lost! They have overachieved in their lifetime far beyond what most of you would ever dream off.So get over it,and focus on your own pathetic achievements for a change.

Darth Vadik, CA   June 29th, 2009 12:21 pm ET

Continuing from my previous point I was making, there are a few conservatives who have brains, they are called Libertarians...

...however....

...for a person to be a Libertarian, they have to get rid of all human emotions, especially compassion and sympathy...

... therefore making the Libertarians pure psychopaths (don't believe me, see Ron Paul).

So in order for you to be conservative, you are either dumb or a psychopath.

Texas Teacher   June 29th, 2009 12:20 pm ET

Michael Moore June 29th, 2009 12:18 pm ET

"Even I support their right to free speech." Freedom of speech is one thing... outright lying is quite another!

didi   June 29th, 2009 12:20 pm ET

these republican idiots do not have any kind of brain, nor work...they are filming all bogus....news....that even any one can film...now a days, every tom dick and harry is shooting movies....jesus, no wonder, I last saw the movie was titanic....Holliwood is like another bollywood, going out of business????????without people watching?????

Texas Teacher   June 29th, 2009 12:19 pm ET

Defamation of character should be against the law no matter who, how, or what. The very idea that film makers can lie and defame the character of any candidate in order to sway the vote is ludicrous as well as evil! These ugly bozos have gotten away with this for too long. And it is time that SOMEONE says ENOUGH! What kind of moral values endorses this kind of behavior? Of course, the far right extremists which seems to be the entire Republican Party and Company!

Michael Moore   June 29th, 2009 12:18 pm ET

Even I support their right to free speech.

Darth Vadik, CA   June 29th, 2009 12:14 pm ET

Freedom of speech means that even the microbrain conservatives can say what is on their mind, as they should.

My only problem with conservatives is that they seem to mix up facts and opinions. That is why there is a pattern to every conservative writing here.

Notice it?

Same talking points, same key words. No facts what-so-ever, just what they heard a drug addled gas bag tell them on the radio. Nothing more than parrots...

Striker   June 29th, 2009 12:11 pm ET

So called "conservatives" and "faux patriotic americans" have lost their thunder with antics on things:

1) Moral values (see Iraq war)
2) Family values (see Ensign, Sanford, Palin, Craig, Ginrich...so on)
3) Military values (sending innocent soliders to die in foreign wars)
4) Patriotism (selling it off for personal gains)
5) Religion (adultry and teen pregnancy on the rise)

Please correct all these to have chance of your voices being heard in this country other just shut up and keep it quite.

Sniffit   June 29th, 2009 12:11 pm ET

@ dan in Tucson AZ, who said "Those that oppose the documentary can boycott it, or come up with a rebuttal piece. "

Can we use taxpayer money for ti too please?

LacrosseMom   June 29th, 2009 12:06 pm ET

@ CK.......... What would you call Faux News? They were sent talking points daily from the Bush Regime! IF Faux News IS not censorship at its best what is?!

Faux News= GOP propaganda network!

Victim   June 29th, 2009 12:05 pm ET

The film should have been released. The supression of information, especially during an election year, is nothing more than media control. What is Hillary so afraid of? The same slander and defamation employed by her camp during the campaign?
We need more information than simply what the candidates want us to see.

Sniffit   June 29th, 2009 12:04 pm ET

"THIS IS ABOUT OUR TAX DOLLARS BEING USING FRAUDULENTLY. "

Ding ding ding...we have a winner! Please step away from the keyboard if you don't understand the above.

Tony   June 29th, 2009 12:01 pm ET

"If Oliver Stone would have released W in 2004 before the election I think we would have seen similar situation."
WRONG!!
Every liberal fascist under the sun would be braying about how this was an assault on free speech!
I haven't seen the hillery movie and don't plan to. If it emulates stone's garbage, it isn't worth seeing. But the level of hypocrisy in attacking those who "defend" the hillary movie is nauseating, specially when linguistic analysis reveals that those who most vehemently attack are the same socialist fascists who would applaud the same type of garbage, such as that produce by stone.

slowgun   June 29th, 2009 12:00 pm ET

ck June 29th, 2009 11:05 am ET

WAKE UP AMERICA!

The liberal left is attempting CENSORSHIP in the media.

If they succeed we are on a very dangerous downhill slide

---------------------------

You might want to learn the facts of this case before you post a message that clearly showns how little you konw about it. If it was just a simple free speech / censoeship issue, it wouldn't be in front of the Supreme Court.
Stop getting all your information from Rush....maybe try reading a book or two

Dan in Texas   June 29th, 2009 11:55 am ET

What I always find so astonishing from these self-righteous, pompus politicians is how quickly they are willing to throw the first stone. I always enjoy seeing them, for once, having a stone thrown at them.

girlymen love the GOP   June 29th, 2009 11:54 am ET

I considered the Clintons "closet republicans".Just look at his sellout of our work force to India and China for example and good old Nafta.

Educate yourselves before you open your mouth and just let the words fall out   June 29th, 2009 11:51 am ET

I'm sorry, but a bunch of neo cons whining about how the liberal left media is attemping cencorship is just too crazy for words!

Fla.   June 29th, 2009 11:50 am ET

ck,

CONversely, your post is unfortunately another attempt at exaggerated fear-mongering from the far right.

This case is not about censorship from an arguably conservatIve-leaning court, but rather an issue of campaign finance laws involving political advocacy groups. Please read.

Alan   June 29th, 2009 11:47 am ET

i do not know whether this is technically free speech or political activity - but I do know the conservatives will now try to delay Justice Sotomayor's confirmation to keep her from participating in the matter.

Libertarian   June 29th, 2009 11:47 am ET

It's obvious that most didn't read this story and understand the importance. This is NOT ABOUT CENSORSHIP. This is not about Hillary.

THIS IS ABOUT OUR TAX DOLLARS BEING USING FRAUDULENTLY.

The RNC found a loophole in CAMPAIGN LAW and exploited it. I don't want either party using my money to make "movies". Jail a couple of them now!

makesUwonder   June 29th, 2009 11:39 am ET

Henry June 29th, 2009 11:19 am ET

Oh ck,

Give it a rest. There are no shadows begind every tree. Unless you also want to consider the righwing fear mongering of eight miserable years.
_________________________________________________________

Actually.......ck...... don't "give it a rest". Just what "Henry" and his likes would like us to do. And Henry, if anyone is doing the "fear mongering" it's Obama and his group or are you not paying attention.

UNHAPPY DEM   June 29th, 2009 11:31 am ET

Oh, would not want anything bad said about ole hillary would we.

Ed Tallahassee FL   June 29th, 2009 11:28 am ET

If it wasn't during an election year would it matter? No

I think it's a legitimate question. I think that it needs to be addresses by the courts.

If Oliver Stone would have released W in 2004 before the election I think we would have seen similar situation.

Bill Sampson   June 29th, 2009 11:28 am ET

The conservatives are so jealous of the Clintons it drives them nuts. Bill Clinton was a very successful president for eight years, elected and reelected decisively (unlike the failed George Bush, whose first "election" is questionable at best). He left the country in much better shape than he found it (and the American people recognize that), including huge budget surpluses for the first time in a generation. (We won't comment on GWB here, the sorry record is well known). Clinton has a very high approval rating as an ex president, traveling the world doing good works. He has managed to make about $100 million since leaving office (not a virtue, but more success that makes the right wing nuts!). Then Hillary becomes an effective and admired U.S. Senator from New York (reelected in a landslide in 2006), makes a very credible run for U.S. President, and then becomes U.S. Secretary of State. And whatever happened to Ken Star? Isn't he running a 3rd tier law school somewhere? It just drives the right wing cuckoo! Let them make their little angry movies that only Rush Limbaugh will go see anyway. It just makes them more pathetic.

Ryan Wing   June 29th, 2009 11:24 am ET

I'm not usually one to side with neo-cons but this is an issue of free speech.

As inflamatory and unfair as the documentary might be, it's someone's opinion and its success should be assessed by whether or not people want to see it. My guess is that if it hadn't become a national legal case it would have disappeared into oblivion like most conservative films.

Jim in San Jose 2   June 29th, 2009 11:24 am ET

CK,

We have been on a downhill slide for the past 8 years. I assure you that if this had been a dem-sponsored movie, it would have been subject to those same spending limits. No one is saying that you can't say things about candidates, just that you have to play by the same rules the opposition is supposedly playing by.

craig   June 29th, 2009 11:22 am ET

Ck, there is one political party with a record of censorship and its not the liberals. I'm sure Rush has told you to hate the ACLU, and you aren't a critical thinker...so that leap in logic must be an easy one for you. My dad would say it is betfer to appear an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Bravo. We all know what you are.

Ken   June 29th, 2009 11:22 am ET

To label these filmmaking idiots as 'conservative' is a joke, and indicates the double-speak our society has fallen prey to. The moronic rightwing underbelly of this nation is NOT conservative. They are the biggest set of reactionary drama queens that have come down the pike since McCarthy and the Nazis before him. You need only read ck's contibution below to get a feel for the fearmongering that is resorted to when they have nothing of significance to talk about - and this kind of behavior is what passes for 'conservative' these days? These so-called 'conservatives' need to get their DNA checked.......human ancestors could not have survived in their challenging environment with the defects these people carry.

Kate in SW Fla   June 29th, 2009 11:20 am ET

Don't be too quick to assume this is a "liberal" issue. Any and all sides will be able to circumvent election law if this case is decided in favor of the so-called filmaker. Our political process is already a terrible mess, where money rules. Honestly, be very careful what you wish for.

Henry   June 29th, 2009 11:19 am ET

Oh ck,

Give it a rest. There are no shadows begind every tree. Unless you also want to consider the righwing fear mongering of eight miserable years.

Franky, Land of Lincoln   June 29th, 2009 11:16 am ET

@CK

Na'h, is kind of what we were hoping and praying here...(right guys? You see.) LOL!!! :)

Boy, I tell you, Conservatism is also dangerous too and fun, don't get me wrong but the liberals...they are just better, sorry, :) .

mk   June 29th, 2009 11:13 am ET

Sanford said, "You take everything a day at a time. I wouldn't say anything definitive at this point. I say my hunch at a variety of different levels would be to continue on."

Translation: "I don't have enough money to support the ex and 4 sons so I have no choice but to remain and do a half assed job. I have ruined my reputation, my children's lives, my mistresses life and my wife could care less. She is about to take me to the cleaners and I will be broke, living off of the State the rest of my natural life, unless, of course, I can con my mistress into taking me in."

Libertarian   June 29th, 2009 11:11 am ET

The group "Citizens United" produced this film and use taxpayer dollars. This was a thinly veiled attempt by the RNC to pull a fast one on the voters using our own money. If there was truly a noteworthy Movie to be made here let the private sector do it. I don't want MY TAX DOLLARS used by either party for smear tactics. ENOUGH!!! Make them return the money and jail a few of the RNC for fraudulent use of tax dollars.

dan in Tucson AZ   June 29th, 2009 11:10 am ET

Is this America, or not?
In America we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Those that oppose the documentary can boycott it, or come up with a rebuttal piece. That is the American way.

ck   June 29th, 2009 11:05 am ET

WAKE UP AMERICA!

The liberal left is attempting CENSORSHIP in the media.

If they succeed we are on a very dangerous downhill slide.

Comments have been closed for this article

subscribe RSS Icon
About The Ticker

The latest political news from CNN's Best Political Team, with campaign coverage, 24-7. Sign up for our twice daily Ticker emails. Got a news tip or feedback? For complete political coverage, bookmark CNNPolitics.com.

CNN=Politics Screensaver

CNN=Politics ScreensaverTap into the power of The Situation Room. Download this powerful new tool that keeps you posted on the latest political news from the campaign trail.
Download (4.1 MB, PC only)

twitter
@edhenrycnn: http://twitpic.com/s1eyz - Courage, Dan Rather
Updated: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:34:04 -0800
@edhenrycnn: http://twitpic.com/s1ero - Pretty good likeness of King of Talk @kingstings
Updated: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:32:37 -0800
@edhenrycnn: http://twitpic.com/s1eeq - Found Tiger Woods -- wax version at Madame Tussaud museum in DC.
Updated: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:30:17 -0800
JohnKingCNN: Study Hall. New Mexico Military Institute. http://twitpic.com/s0xm6
Updated: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:38:33 -0800
@wolfblitzercnn: Did you see the Obamas light the National Christmas Tree? He counted down, and then he, the First :Lady and both daughters hit the button.
Updated: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:16:36 -0800
Categories
Powered by WordPress.com VIP