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.
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” on Clinton’s qualifications and record.
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.
