he Supreme Court reviews of Hillary: The Movie are in, said Dahlia Lithwick in Slate. It’s “not a musical comedy,” in the words of Justices Stephen Breyer and David Souter. But the high court has yet to make the only judgment that matters: whether the "virulently anti-Clinton film”—released during 2008's presidential race by the conservative Citizens United—is a “90-minute attack ad,” and thus subject to the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, or “core” political free speech.
Fortunately, several justices were open to Citizens United’s argument that restricting the film violates free speech, said the Los Angeles Times in an editorial. The applicable provision in McCain-Feingold—prohibiting corporate- or union-sponored campaign ads close to an election—is “well-intentioned,” but it goes too far in “muzzling” commentary by corporate entities.
But siding with Citizens United would cut too large a hole in our campaign finance laws, said The New York Times in an editorial. If the Supreme Court accepts the nonprofit’s “most dangerous” arguments, it will “allow corporate money to flood into partisan politics in ways it has not in many decades.” The court should give Citizens United two thumbs down.
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
- Here's proof that Justin Bieber is just as spoiled as you always thought
- What the collapse of the Ming Dynasty can tell us about American decline
- 7 ways to be the most interesting person in any room
- Why is it so expensive to build a bridge in America?
- Why is American internet so slow?
- Ukraine's fraught relationship with Russia: A brief history
- What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?
- Colorado’s new ‘drive high, get a DUI’ commercials are actually pretty clever
- Can Rand Paul avoid the Neville Chamberlain trap?
- To build the Death Star, we'll need this space elevator
Subscribe to the Week