[Peace-discuss] US censorship

[Ricky Baldwin]

Outrageous!

Letters to the editor, folks: they're quick, easy, fun
-- and FREE!

Ricky
--- "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>
wrote:
> [I opposed the misnamed "campaign finance reform
> act" (McCain-Feingold) in
> print and on the air when I ran for Congress,
> apparently to some liberal
> dismay.  Here's an example of what it's brought us.
> --CGE]
> 
> 	June 24, 2004
> 	"Fahrenheit 9/11" ban?
> 	Ads for Moore's movie could be stopped on July 30
> 	By Alexander Bolton
> 
> Michael Moore may be prevented from advertising his
> controversial new
> movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” on television or radio
> after July 30 if the
> Federal Election Commission (FEC) today accepts the
> legal advice of its
> general counsel.
> 
> At the same time, a Republican-allied 527 soft-money
> group is preparing to
> file a complaint against Moore’s film with the FEC
> for violating
> campaign-finance law.
> 
> In a draft advisory opinion placed on the FEC’s
> agenda for today’s
> meeting, the agency’s general counsel states that
> political documentary
> filmmakers may not air television or radio ads
> referring to federal
> candidates within 30 days of a primary election or
> 60 days of a general
> election.
> 	
> steve finn/Getty images Michael Moore
> 
> The opinion is generated under the new
> McCain-Feingold campaign-finance
> law, which prohibits corporate-funded ads that
> identify a federal
> candidate before a primary or general election.
> 
> The proscription is broadly defined. Section 100.29
> of the federal
> election regulations defines restricted
> corporate-funded ads as those that
> identify a candidate by his “name, nickname,
> photograph or drawing” or
> make it “otherwise apparent through an unambiguous
> reference.”
> 
> Should the six members of the FEC vote to approve
> the counsel’s opinion,
> it could put a serious crimp on Moore’s promotion
> efforts. The flavor of
> the movie was encapsulated by a recent review in The
> Boston Globe as
> “the case against George W. Bush, a fat compendium
> of previously
> reported crimes, errors, sins, and grievances
> delivered in the
> director’s patented tone of vaudevillian social
> outrage.”
> 
> The FEC ruling may also affect promotion of a slew
> of other upcoming
> political documentaries and films, such as
> “Uncovered: The Whole Truth
> About the Iraq War,” which opens in August, “The
> Corporation,” about
> democratic institutions being subsumed by the
> corporate agenda, or
> “Silver City,” a recently finished film by John
> Sayles that criticizes
> the Bush administration.
> 
> Another film, “The Hunting of the President,”
> which investigates
> whether Bill Clinton was the victim of a vast
> conspiracy, could be subject
> to regulations if it mentions Bush or members of
> Congress in its ads.
> 
> Since the FEC considers the Republican presidential
> convention scheduled
> to begin Aug. 30 a national political primary in
> which Bush is a
> candidate, Moore and other politically oriented
> filmmakers could not air
> any ad mentioning Bush after July 30. That could
> make advertising for the
> film after July difficult since it is all about the
> Bush administration
> and what Moore regards as its mishandling of the war
> on terrorism and the
> decision to invade Iraq.
> 
> After the convention, ads for political films that
> mention Bush or any
> other federal candidate would be subject to the
> restrictions on all
> corporate communications within 60 days of the Nov.
> 2 general election.
> 
> “Fahrenheit 9/11” opens nationally tomorrow.
> 
> The film’s distributor, Lions Gate Films, an
> incorporated organization,
> would almost certainly pay for its broadcast
> promotions.
> 
> David Bossie, the president of Citizens United,
> plans to allege that
> “Fahrenheit 9/11” violates federal election law,
> arguing that “Moore
> has publicly indicated his goal is to impact this
> election season.”
> 
> Bossie had planned to file a complaint with the FEC
> yesterday but
> postponed action because his lawyers want to review
> it at the last minute,
> said Summer Stitz, a spokeswoman for Bossie’s
> group.
> 
> “I don’t think much of Michael Moore or his
> two-hour political
> advertisement — that’s all it is,” Bossie
> said. “He uses all of
> these words to make it look like he makes
> documentaries, but it’s the
> furthest thing from the truth. Documentaries tend to
> be fact-based.”
> 
> Sarah Greenberg, a spokeswoman for Lions Gate Films
> who is serving as
> Moore’s spokeswoman, did not return a call for
> comment.
> 
> The FEC counsel’s draft advisory opinion responded
> to a request for
> guidance from David Hardy, a documentary film
> producer with the Bill of
> Rights Educational Foundation. Hardy asked whether
> he could air broadcast
> ads that refer to congressional officeholders who
> appear in his
> documentary.
> 
> At issue in the FEC’s opinion is whether
> documentary films qualify for a
> “media exemption,” which allows members of the
> press to discuss
> political candidates freely in the days before an
> election.
> 
> In its opinion, the general counsel wrote, “In
> McConnell vs. FEC …
> (2003) the [Supreme] Court described the media
> exemption as ‘narrow’
> and drew a distinction between ‘corporations that
> are part of the media
> industry’ as opposed to ‘other corporations that
> are not involved in
> the regular business of imparting news to the
> public.’”
> 
> “The radio and television commercials that you
> describe in your request
> would be electioneering communications,” the
> counsel concluded. “The
> proposed commercials would refer to at least one
> presidential candidate.
> … They would also be publicly distributed because
> you intend to pay a
> radio station and perhaps a television station to
> air or broadcast your
> commercials. … Finally, they would reach 50,000
> people within 30 days of
> a national nominating convention and or the general
> election.”
> 
> However, one commissioner, Michael Toner, has a
> different view of what
> restrictions may be placed on political films.
> 
> “I think there’s evidence that when Congress
> created the press
> exemption they intended for it to cover media in all
> its forms,” said
> Toner. “If a documentary produced by an
> independent company would be
> subject to restriction or, equally important, if
> efforts to promote the
> documentary would be subject to restriction, I think
> that is very
> problematic.”
> 	
> 
> © 2004 The Hill 733 Fifteenth Street, NW Suite 1140
> Washington, DC 20005
> 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>
http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo