Another Loophole Exposed

In Salon (ad serve req.), John Gorenfeld discusses efforts to keep the Michael Moore joint Fahrenheit 9/11 out of theaters. In a related article from Voice of America, Citizens United honcho David Bossie calls the picture "Nothing more than a two-hour political commercial.

"It is nothing more than an attack ad on President Bush," says Mr. Bossie. "It is nothing more or less and so I think that people who go to see it will have already made up their minds and they are just making a donation to Michael Moore and to the John Kerry [presidential] campaign."

Since he brings it up, I wonder if somebody better versed than me in the intricacies of campaign finance reform can answer a question: Why doesn't some smart lawyer try to define Fahrenheit 9/11 as a "sham issue ad" subject to suppression under the BCRA?

Two weaknesses with that strategy immediately occur, but neither seems fatal: The 60-day limit doesn't kick in until early September, but given the limited and gradual release documentaries get, it's likely that quashing the movie a few months from now could still have an effect.

More importantly, it's not strictly a "broadcast" ad. But since every movie now gets videotaped in the moviehouse and pirated into a variety of distribution channels, you could argue that every filmmaker who allows his or her picture to be released theatrically is effectively partnering in a broadcast enterprise. Even if that unlikely challenge didn't work, you could still challenge the TV and radio ads for the movie itself. How is informing people about a new documentary categorically different from informing them about President Bush's decision on the Kyoto Protocol?

Comments

[Gadfly]

I don't think people pay $10 a pop to see a political ad. Some of the reviews I've seen give it 3 1/2 out of 4 stars and say it's great, funny entertainment.

Now "Wag the Dog" - maybe you'd be on to something with that one.

[Warren]

Why doesn't some smart lawyer try to define Fahrenheit 9/11 as a "sham issue ad" subject to suppression under the BCRA?

Soon BCRA will be just like RICO, a big umbrella that will allow the establishment to use the power of the Federal Government to squash anything they don't like. Establishment approved speech, will of course be immune to BCRA.

[jack]

What was the point of this article? What if monkeys fly out of my ass and tell me to run for president?

[Jack]

That "jack" above is not me.

[Amy Phillips]

Actually, if you could prove that it was anti-Bush advertising, you could get him under the BCRA for not reporting the money he and his backers spent on it as political contributions, or for exceeding donation limits. Then there are no time limits and no restrictions to broadcast TV. Not that I'm condoning such things, but it would serve Moore right.

[Ed Thibodeau]

I'm confident that conservatives would never challenge a movie like Farenheit 9/11 in court. When they were opposing campaign finance reform they argued that spending money to make a point was free speech guaranteed under the First Amendment. Everybody knows that conservatives are far too principled to change their position just because the speech in question is quite effectively going against them.

[Mo]

Remember in Fahrenheit 451 censorship was started by the people before the government made it official policy.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

Phil Hendrie made the point that FU411 should be out on DVD in October or November. And, there will be TV commercials for it at that time, no doubt.

[Huh?]

What if monkeys fly out of my ass and tell me to run for president?

I wonder if this is what happened to Ralph Nader.

[thoreau]

I think some Republicans told Nader to run for President, not the monkeys up his ass.

[JACK]

That "Jack" above is not me. Nor is the "jack" above.

[jacK]

None of the three Jacks above are me.

[jimcee]

Maybe if we just don't pay attention to Mr. Moore he'll go away sooner. Of course his film is political but it is also a private commercial enterprise so let's just let it go.
Just ignore that elephant on the screen. (Sorry.)

[Michael]

On the flip side, does this mean you can get around campaign
finance restrictions by making a movie, showing it in very
limited release, and excerpting it in ads?

[Stephen Bronstein]

Well, the FEC is already looking at suppressing ads for the film. The film itself is, as noted, a bit more of a stretch. But not that much more.

[PLAYER H8R]

Just in case you care, everytime a online writer links to a Salon article a demon gets its wings.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Somebody please turn jack off.

[Jason Ligon]

"I don't think people pay $10 a pop to see a political ad. Some of the reviews I've seen give it 3 1/2 out of 4 stars and say it's great, funny entertainment."

Bwahaahaaa!

If people buy books that are political ads, of course they will go see a movie.

[Heather]

"On the flip side, does this mean you can get around campaign finance restrictions by making a movie, showing it in very limited release, and excerpting it in ads?"

Yup, another way to get around it is to package your propaganda in a "news" format and then broadcast it. Yes, I'm looking at you Fox News. And you too, Rush. And if you're really good, you get an exclusive contract to broadcast your message to a select group of people. Say, the Armed Forces by way of radio. Evil, clever Reeps! Hate it when they think of it first.

[Neil Lindsey]

Bravo, Heather. You too, Jason. The Michael Moore critics who deem it unfair that he is allowed to make a movie with political implications, fail to realize that other media are filled with pro-Bush pronouncements. What's good for the goose...

[rubn1out]

Micheal Moore is a jackass, plain and simple. it was disgusting how he treated Charleton Heston after he invited him into his home in bowling for columbine