I was in shock that I had never heard of "Hilary: The Movie" before reading this article today. This may be old news to some but about a year ago a documentary called "Hillary: The Movie" was released. But trust me, it's not at all what it seems... Click here to watch the trailer. Clearly, some grudges just can't be let go. This 90-minute film was funded by Citizens United (yuck!) and created by David Bossie, who in the 90s, worked as an investigator for Rep. Dan Burton's government-reform committee. Burton was an antagonist to Bill and Hillary Clinton, leading never-ending investigations of Whitewater, campaign finance and any other scandal you can think.
All the sniffing around didn't really pay off for either of them. Fast forward to 2007, seven years after the Clintons left the White House, Burton is a hardly-known member of the dying Republican party, and Hillary Clinton is the front runner to be the Democrats' nominee for president in 2008. Who is the loser in THAT situation? And Bossie, well, he was working on a little project of this own, his great anti-Hillary movie.
The film had a cast of old Clinton foes: former House speaker Newt Gingrich, Clinton pollster and confidant-turned-antagonist Dick Morris, and conservative commentator Ann Coulter, who takes a break from her denunciations to deliver the film's solitary compliment about the now-secretary of state: "Looks good in a pantsuit." Hell yes she does? Is that all you could come up with Ann? Come on!!
Was this movie to be the great cultivation of all those years of unproductive investigation? Was it finally going to pay off? Was Bossie actually going to get his revenge on the Clintons?!
The movie was released in the fall of 2007, in the thick of the Democratic presidential primary season. Bossie's target audience: a new generation of voters who don't remember the old Clinton wars. He said someone who is 18 this year was "4 years old when the scandal broke." He thinks these young voters will be hungry for Hillary dirt.
So did Bossie get his long awaited revenge? Ummm... no.
They planned to show the film in selected theaters and distribute it on DVD, which they did... although, I don't think ANYONE saw it! But they also planned to run radio and TV ads promoting the film and hoped to broadcast the documentary on television. That wasn't gonna fly.
Strangely enough, the McCain-Feingold Act (read about it here) prohibited this movie from being shown on television. The McCain-Feingold Act forbids corporate-funded broadcast ads that attack a candidate within a month of a primary or general election. And, The Supreme Court sided with the FEC, Federal Election Commission, and deemed this "movie" to be more like a really long anti-Hillary campaign ad than a movie. They claimed it told "the electorate that Sen. Clinton is unfit for office... and that viewers should vote against her."
"Every element of the film, including the narration, the visual images and audio track, and the selection of clips, advances the clear message that Senator Clinton lacked both the integrity and the qualifications to be president of the United States," argued the Supreme Court.
"The very fact that Citizens United was willing to pay cable companies to make its film available on video-on-demand shows that it is no different from an "infomercial," they said. This "movie" was not getting shown! Whoo!
But Bossie and lawyers for Citizens United, say limits on "core political speech rights" are unconstitutional. They fought back. Calling on their 1st Amendment rights.
It has been an interesting ride in the courts with other cases similar to this because with the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the court has shifted toward the view that campaign laws, like the McCain-Feingold Act, violate the free-speech rights of political groups. Roberts said, "The 1st Amendment requires us to err on the side of protecting political speech."
But actually, the ultimate impact of "Hillary: The Movie" comes to a head this week when justices of the Supreme Court once again will be challenged to decide how congressional intentions to curb the power of special interest groups can coexist with the First Amendment's protection of free speech.
Which brings me to the end. I am interested in all of this for two reasons. One, to ask a question to you guys. Seeing clips of "Hillary: The Movie" and other vicious attacks on politicians, on both the Republican and Democratic side, do you agree that they should be protected under which law, the 1st Amendment right to free speech, or the McCain-Feingold Act?
And two, to make a point about Hillary Clinton and to send out a warning to the anti-Hillary industry. It is truly amazing to say that for all the charges through the years, NONE have ever stuck. The harder the anti-Hillary industry tried to bring Hillary down, the more they have attacked, the higher she has risen.
She is arguably the most-investigated, most-judged woman in contemporary American culture. She always been a tabloid target on top her successes. Probably, because of her great successes. From being a groundbreaking First Lady in the White House, to winning a Senate seat in the nation's most contentious state, to being the first woman to come within reach of the Presidency, to working as the nations top diplomat as Secretary of State. I find no other reason than her resilience, unwavering strength and stoic demeanor that fuels her haters' fury.
So, I say and I think Hillary would too: bring it on, let's see how high she can rise.
Read entire post
