Can the FEC regulate movie ads?

Washington Times:

If a political movie falls into theaters a few months before Election Day but no one is allowed to hear about it, does it violate the First Amendment clause on freedom of speech?

That's the constitutional riddle Supreme Court justices will consider Tuesday: Do American citizens have the right to hear political messages of their choosing at the movies, on DVDs and on pay-per-view television, or are those messages subject to restraints under the 2002 campaign finance laws?

The case before the court concerns "Hillary: The Movie," a documentary critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton that was produced by the conservative group Citizens United. It was released in theaters in January during the presidential primary season, which concluded in June.

But the Federal Election Commission told the producers of the movie that any advertisements for the film would have to carry the same disclaimer as political advocacy ads. The filmmakers chose not to advertise at all and sued the FEC.

The documentary focuses on five aspects of the political careers of Mrs. Clinton and husband Bill Clinton: the firing of the White House travel staff, accusations of retaliation against a woman who accused Mr. Clinton of sexual harassment, whether Mrs. Clinton adhered to campaign finance restrictions while running for the Senate, Mr. Clinton's pardons, and Mrs. Clinton's record on health care, job creation and national security issues.

"Although Sen. Clinton's candidacy was the backdrop for the 90-minute documentary, neither the movie's narrator nor any of the individuals interviewed during the movie expressly advocated her election or defeat as president," Theodore B. Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general who is representing Citizens United, wrote in the appeal.

Mr. Olson also is asking the court to determine whether the disclaimer and disclosure requirements of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), sponsored by Sens. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and Russ Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat, can be applied to advertisements for documentary films.

...

Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore has not publicly commented on the case.

His anti-Bush film "Fahrenheit 9/11" was released June 25, 2004, and therefore was not restricted by the time frames for political ads - 60 days before a general election and 90 days before a primary.

...

Moore's movie was just one of the leftist movies meant to influence elections in recent years. Most were antiwar puke films, but there have been others whose clear intent was to denigrate conservatives or Republicans. If the FEC is successful in this case, the left better be looking for push back against their propaganda films.

I would like to see the court overturn McCain-Feingold. It was a bad law that has not made campaigns better. It also was a clear violation of the First Amendment.