WASHINGTON, March 24 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to trim back federal election funding law in a case involving an attack "documentary" against Hillary Clinton, experts said.
At stake is a provision of a 2002 federal campaign law that bans "election communications" funded by corporations or unions close to an election.
The justices heard argument in the case Tuesday, with former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson representing the producers of "Hillary, the Movie." The film's backers wanted to make it available as an "on demand" movie on cable television during the 2008 race for the presidency.
But federal courts ruled the movie, financed partly with funds from unnamed corporations, violated the 2002 McCain-Feingold law.
Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court, even its liberal members, seemed much more sympathetic to allowing such communications to be heard, SCOTUSblog.com reported. Justice Antonin Scalia appeared to be speaking for a majority when he maintained from the bench that the First Amendment gives "heightened" protection to an "election communications" when voters make an active choice to hear it, such as when choosing a documentary from the "on demand" service.
The Web site said the justices appeared to "recoil" from the broad argument by Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, who suggested the Constitution not only allows the restriction of the "documentary" message when offered "on demand," but also on the Internet, on a DVD or in a book, even at a public library.
The Supreme Court should rule in the case before its summer recess in late June or early July.
(Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205.)
