Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Donate Shop PBS Search PBS
Photo of Bill Moyers Bill Moyers Journal
Bill Moyers Journal
Bill Moyers Journal
Watch & Listen The Blog Archive Transcripts Buy DVDs

« Ask Maggie Mahar | Main | Maggie Mahar Answers Viewer Questions - Part I »

Michael Winship: Coming Soon to a Democracy Near You...

(Photo by Robin Holland)

Below is an article by JOURNAL senior writer Michael Winship. We welcome your comments below.

"Coming Soon to a Democracy Near You..."
By Michael Winship

The envelope, please. And the winner for “most influential motion picture in American politics” is… HILLARY: THE MOVIE.

Never heard of it? Not surprising – very few people saw it in the first place. But HILLARY: THE MOVIE – a no-holds-barred attack on the life and career of Hillary Clinton intended for viewing during her presidential campaign – could prove to have an impact on the political scene greater than even its producers could have dreamed.

In the world of money and politics, HILLARY: THE MOVIE may turn out to be the sleeper hit of the year, a boffo blockbuster. Depending on the outcome of a special Supreme Court hearing on September 9th, this little piece of propaganda could unleash a new torrent of cash flooding into campaigns from big business, unions and other special interests. HILLARY: THE MOVIE may turn out to be FRANKENSTEIN: THE MONSTER.

The film was created by a conservative group called Citizens United. They wanted to distribute the film via on-demand TV and buy commercials to promote those telecasts, but because the film was partially financed by corporate sponsors, the Federal Election Commission said no, that it was a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act – McCain-Feingold – which restricts the use of corporate money directly for or against candidates.

Citizens United appealed their case all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was first heard back in March. But the court did an usual thing. They asked for more time and ordered a new hearing and new arguments, almost a month ahead of the first Monday in October that usually marks the official start of the court’s annual sessions.

The reason for the special hearing is to more broadly consider the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold and campaign finance reform in general; whether it denies a corporation the First Amendment right of free speech.

Those who believe that a corporation is being deprived of a fundamental right feel it should be treated no differently than any individual citizen. Those opposed believe that corporations do not hold the same rights as citizens and that their deep pockets – via political action committees (PAC’s) and other avenues of participation – already give them clout and influence dangerous to the health of a democracy.

All of this comes, as THE NEW YORK TIMES reported, “At a crucial historical moment, as corporations today almost certainly have more to gain or fear from government action than at any time since the New Deal.”

More than 50 friend of the court (amicus) briefs have been filed, an unprecedented number for a First Amendment case. The legal wrangling has made for some strange pairings. “The American Civil Liberties Union and its usual allies are on opposite sides,” the TIMES noted, “with the civil rights group fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with the National Rifle Association” in support of HILLARY: THE MOVIE’s corporate sponsors.

“Most of the rest of the liberal establishment is on the other side, saying that allowing corporate money to flood the airwaves would pollute and corrupt political discourse.”

One of those who will argue on September 9th for overturning the McCain-Feingold limitations is the redoubtable Floyd Abrams, the ardent and vocal defender of free speech who has argued many landmark First Amendment cases before the Supreme Court. On the other side is Trevor Potter, founding president of the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center and a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission. General Counsel to John McCain during his presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2008, Potter was involved in the drafting of McCain-Feingold and has filed one of the amicus briefs in its defense.

Both appear on the current edition of public television’s BILL MOYERS JOURNAL, interviewed by my colleague Bill Moyers. “The question here is to what extent, if at all, can unions and corporations spend their money to put ads on or to speak out themselves in their own name about political matters, including even who to vote for,” Abrams said.

“I don't think that we should make a distinction on First Amendment grounds in terms of who's speaking. I think that whether the speaker is an individual or an issue group or a union or a corporation, if anything, the public is served, not disserved, by having more speech.”

Trevor Potter disagreed. “Corporations exist for economic purposes, commercial purposes,” he said. “And the notion that they have full First Amendment free speech rights, as well doesn't make any sense for this artificial creation that exists for economic, not political purposes…

“Corporations just want to make money. So, if you let the corporation with a privileged economic legal position loose in the political sphere when we're deciding who to elect, I think you are giving them an enormous advantage over individuals and not a healthy one for our democracy.”

The Supreme Court could rule just on Citizens United’s HILLARY: THE MOVIE case, but the call for the special session and the current composition of the court would seem to indicate that the decision might completely overthrow McCain-Feingold.

Three thousand corporate PAC’s registered with the Federal Election Commission in 2007 and 2008 spent more than $500 million for political purposes. And we’ve seen the hundreds of millions big business already has spent to battle the Obama administration’s domestic agenda. A 5-4 decision in favor of corporate interests could mean much, much more money from multinational corporations overwhelming our electoral process.

Think of the September 9th hearing as a sneak preview of coming attractions.


Please note that the views and opinions expressed by Michael Winship are not necessarily the views and opinions held by Bill Moyers or BILL MOYERS JOURNAL.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1851

Comments

jhaksch: You miss the point entirely. Defending Hillary and defending human rights are completely separate. The question was, "Can corporations be allowed to multiply their political speech a million times, while the diluting the individual citizen's a million times.?" If corporations are citizens, then several of them could overcome the moral weight of 300 million persons. (Hillary can take care of herself.)

The discussion aired on 09-06-09 regarding "Hillary: The Movie" was a masterpiece of misdirection. The problem is not so much who paid for what. The real problem is that a 'movie' broadcast during a campaign is held to even lower standards of truthful fact than a campaign ad....which are ridiculously low standards to begin with. One could air the most outrageous innuendo and outright lie without fear of legal action, claiming 'artistic license.' Even if a suit is brought, its outcome would be far too late to undo the resultant subversion of the political process.

The discussion aired on 09-06-09 regarding "Hillary: The Movie" was a masterpiece of misdirection. The problem is not so much who paid for what. The real problem is that a 'movie' broadcast during a campaign is held to even lower standards of truthful fact than a campaign ad....which are ridiculously low standards to begin with. One could air the most outrageous innuendo and outright lie without fear of legal action, claiming 'artistic license.' Even if a suit is brought, its outcome would be far too late to undo the resultant subversion of the political process.

So who were the corporate sponsers? - Can't find it on the web.

Citizens United (CU), created in November 1988 by conservative activist Floyd G. Brown, is "a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of Virginia and tax-exempt under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code."

Citizens United describes itself as "an organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizens control. Through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass roots organization, Citizens United seeks to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security. Citizens United's goal is to restore the founding father's vision of a free nation, guided by the honesty, common sense, and good will of its citizens," its website states.

Citizens United is also affiliated with The Presidential Coalition, a 501c4, and the 2007 Conservative Victory Committee, a Section 527 political action committee. Previously, it was affiliated with the National Security Political Action Committee (National Security PAC), Presidential Victory Committee and Americans for Bush.

Last Trip to the Hospital

(sung to the arrangement of Neil Young's "Last Trip to Tulsa", in which Mr. Young's protagonist was felling a palm tree while on an acid trip...) Words by GLH

Moyers sat in the hospital,
Sobbing in a tissue.
When the patient woke to ask,
"Can I help you frame the issues?"

Moyers sniffed,"It's not a case of moral outrage we have here;
I've been broadcasting this same program,
For forty-seven years!"

The patient moaned,"I've lived too long,
At least that's my impression.
It would have been better had I died,
Amidst this last recession."

Moyers said,"Reform means nothing!
Let me share a big confession.
They've teased mules with this same carrot,
Since before the Great Depression."

The patient gasped,"I blame Obama!"
Moyers shushed,"He's only human.
We should have gotten single-payer,
As a gift from Harry Truman."

Then came an anguished death rattle.
A nurse cried,"Bring the cart!"
Moyers unbuttoned the patient's pajama top,
And couldn't find a heart.
So he uncapped his magic marker,
And wrote D_N_R.

Moyers whined,"Too bad he's soulless,
And cannot go to Heaven.
Capitalism died at 11:57."
And he added,"It's not a case of moral outrage we have here. I've been broadcasting this same program for forty-seven years."

So folks it's not a case of moral outrage on TV.
The Master must be euthanized,
Before the slaves go free.
So don't blame Moyers,
As he prattles through his tears,
He's been broadcasting this same program for forty-seven years.

Post a comment

THE MOYERS BLOG is our forum for viewers' comments intended for discussing and debating ideas and issues raised on BILL MOYERS JOURNAL. THE MOYERS BLOG invites you to share your thoughts. We are committed to keeping an open discussion; in order to preserve a civil, respectful dialogue, our editors reserve the right to remove or alter any comments that we find unacceptable, for any reason. For more information, please click here.

THE MOYERS BLOG
A Companion Blog to Bill Moyers Journal

Your Comments

Podcasts

THE JOURNAL offers a free podcast and vodcast of all weekly episodes. (help)

Click to subscribe in iTunes

Subscribe with another reader

Get the vodcast (help)

For Educators    About the Series    Bill Moyers on PBS   

© Public Affairs Television 2008    Privacy Policy    DVD/VHS    Terms of Use    FAQ