Is a "documentary" a campaign Ad?

But the Supreme Court must now determine what the scathing, 90-minute anti-Hillary Rodham Clinton movie is: a slashing journalistic documentary protected by the First Amendment or a political attack ad that must be regulated by campaign finance laws during election season. The court's decision could determine the future of the McCain-Feingold law, the popular name for 2002 revisions to the nation's campaign finance laws, one justice said.

Government lawyers argued Tuesday that conservative group Citizens United's documentary about the former presidential candidate is a political ad just like traditional one-minute or 30-second spots and therefore regulated by the McCain-Feingold law. The test "does not depend on the length," Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart said.

Arguing that a movie and a campaign ad are the same could have adverse consequences for the McCain-Feingold law, Justice Anthony Kennedy said. "If we think that the application of this to a 90-minute film is unconstitutional, then the whole statute should fall," Kennedy said.

But if the federal government can treat a movie like a political advertisement, then why not books, the justices asked. It can, answered Stewart, "if the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy," the test used in regulating broadcast, cable or satellite communication released 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a presidential primary or convention. That answer seemed to concern the justices. What about electronic books, like those used on Amazon's Kindle reader, justices asked. Yes, Stewart said. What if Wal-Mart wanted to run ads touting an action figure of a political candidate, Chief Justice John Roberts asked, could that be regulated? "If it's aired at the right place at the right time," Stewart said.

Citizens United's attempts to pay for the movie to be shown on video-on-demand — where people request "Hillary: The Movie" be shown on the televisions in their home — could bring heightened First Amendment scrutiny, Justice Antonin Scalia said. Not only would the government be preventing the movie's producers from getting their movie out, they would be blocking someone who specifically wants to see that movie from getting it, Scalia said. "Isn't that a heightened First Amendment" concern, Scalia asked.

I wonder if the governments current administration would argue the same thing about "Farenheit 9/11". Aren't Liberals supposed to be for free speech?

I've long thought that McCain/Feingold violated the First Amendment. Now I get to see if the Supreme Court agrees with me.

This has some scary implications.