WASHINGTON — The reviews are in. Film critic and Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer says “Hillary: The Movie” is not a musical comedy.
But the Supreme Court must now determine what the scathing, 90-minute anti-Hillary Rodham Clinton movie actually is: a slashing journalistic documentary protected by the First Amendment, or a political attack ad that must be regulated by campaign-finance laws during election season.
The court’s decision could determine the future of the McCain-Feingold law, the popular name for 2002 revisions to the nation’s campaign-finance laws, one justice said.
Government lawyers argued Tuesday that conservative group Citizens United’s documentary about the former presidential candidate is a political ad, just like the traditional one-minute or 30-second spots, and therefore should be regulated by the McCain-Feingold law.
The test “does not depend on the length,” Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart said.
Arguing that a movie and a campaign ad are the same could have adverse consequences for the McCain-Feingold law, Justice Anthony Kennedy said.
“If we think that the application of this to a 90-minute film is unconstitutional, then the whole statute should fall,” Kennedy said.
Citizens United wanted to pay for its documentary to be shown on home video-on-demand, and for ads promoting the movie to be shown in key states during the nomination race. Federal judges, however, said the movie should be regulated by the McCain-Feingold law.
Former Solicitor General Theodore Olson called his client’s movie a “long discussion” that “informs and educates” interested people on Clinton’s qualifications and record.
That argument did not seem to sway several of the court’s liberal justices. Several justices quoted from the script, which is filled with criticism of the former first lady. The movie was advertised on the Internet, sold on DVD and shown in a few theaters. Campaign regulations do not apply to DVDs, theaters or the Internet.
The justices are expected to make a decision before early summer.
