Fahrenheit 9/11 ads may be considered as campaign speech

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » June 28, 2004, 5:04 pm

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/005755.shtml#005755

In a draft advisory opinion placed on the FEC’s agenda for today’s meeting, the agency’s general counsel states that political documentary filmmakers may not air television or radio ads referring to federal candidates within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.

The opinion is generated under the new McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, which prohibits corporate-funded ads that identify a federal candidate before a primary or general election.

The proscription is broadly defined. Section 100.29 of the federal election regulations defines restricted corporate-funded ads as those that identify a candidate by his “name, nickname, photograph or drawing” or make it “otherwise apparent through an unambiguous reference.”

A few thoughts.

They may have a point, legally speaking. Under the Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (BCRA), this may very well qualify under the restrictions of no political ads 60 days before an election.

Even if they do end up pulling them for the specified period the coverage of them being pulled, Moore will probably end up getting more buzz about the film at that point by them restricting the ads.

I continue to stand behind my contention that the BCRA is a lousy piece of legislation.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » June 28, 2004, 5:08 pm

It's a MOVIE - I find the censorship that the republicans are trying to do on this movie to be ridiculous.

If they didn't make it such a big deal - it wouldn't have made as much money.

It's difficult for me to believe that it's lies in general that republicans have a problem with. After all, if it were lies that upset the right-wing, then surely republicans would be somewhat angered by that whole WMD thing in Iraq. If it were lies that made republicans blood boil, then surely some of the countless lies that Bush & Company have told the world would bother them just a little bit.

They are making it seem like they are afraid of people finding out the truth.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » June 28, 2004, 5:27 pm

I'm sure Fatty McMoore is crying all the way to the bank.

Yes, I'm still going to see the movie. Shutup ;p

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » June 28, 2004, 6:05 pm

If the Bush admin is willing to accept that everything in the movie is factual, sure, hold it up and give it more press.

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » June 29, 2004, 2:26 am

I didn't see a single TV ad about F911 but I knew all about it months before release. Who needs the TV ads when the press catch on and do your advertising for free? It's news!

Hum, I need to get to the theater and see this before Spidey 2 comes out.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » June 29, 2004, 2:50 am

How exactly does a movie released in June fall within the 60 day limit for an election in November? Even if the censorship of the arts was allowable under this law, it doesn't apply. (learn to read plsktks)

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » June 29, 2004, 3:40 am

I was pointing out that this ruling would have had no effect whatsoever on F911, regardless of when it was released.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » June 29, 2004, 5:17 am

Mplor wrote:I was pointing out that this ruling would have had no effect whatsoever on F911, regardless of when it was released.

My post wasn't in response to you by they way (if you took it that way). Just a statement in general and coincidence that it was after your post.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » June 29, 2004, 5:59 am

This did not relate to the general election; rather, there is a law about campaigning 30 days or so before the convention. I could be wrong about the days, but that's what the Republicans were talking about dealing with the convention, and they believed it was free press for Kerry and anti-Bush very close to convention time. The very worst thing Republicans could do was speak out against the film. It made people want to see it even more.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » June 29, 2004, 6:36 am

That's not what's mentioned in the article/quote...

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » June 29, 2004, 8:45 am

Karae wrote:How exactly does a movie released in June fall within the 60 day limit for an election in November? Even if the censorship of the arts was allowable under this law, it doesn't apply. (learn to read plsktks)

The following link is from the link I originally quoted (and the original source).

http://www.thehill.com/news/062404/moore.aspx

Since the FEC considers the Republican presidential convention scheduled to begin Aug. 30 a national political primary in which Bush is a candidate, Moore and other politically oriented filmmakers could not air any ad mentioning Bush after July 30. That could make advertising for the film after July difficult since it is all about the Bush administration and what Moore regards as its mishandling of the war on terrorism and the decision to invade Iraq.

After the convention, ads for political films that mention Bush or any other federal candidate would be subject to the restrictions on all corporate communications within 60 days of the Nov. 2 general election.

Post by **Sylvus** » June 29, 2004, 11:18 am

Okay, reading just the blurb in the original post, it seems to only refer to mentioning the candidate. They could still air an ad that was like Michael Moore saying "Are you upset with the war in Iraq? Did you know that there are some crazy things that went down after 9/11? Come see my movie that the press has been constantly talking about!"

Couldn't they?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 29, 2004, 12:04 pm

for starters, i seriously doubt this will come to pass.

secondly, even if it does, the movie can be promoted, just without pictures of George Bush in the commercials.

it is a commentary piece. should Sean Hannity commericals be restricted by the election reform law? should Ann Coulter or Al Franken not be able to do book tours without it counting towards one of the respective parties?

i know the legislation is particularly about television advertising, but regardless, Michael Moore, Lions Gate Films, and Miramax are not entities that are financed by the Democratic party.

Should George Bush have to "credit" the time his speeches get on CNN (he probably has at least 4-5 live events a week that are broadcast live on the major cable outlets). Should his campaign have to be "debted" for the value of that airtime? (there are real dollar values that are relatively easy to calculate, etc).

Anyway, i think this falls outside the borders of that legislation - or it certainly should. I say that from my position of legal obliviousness.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » June 29, 2004, 4:32 pm

Voronwë wrote:for starters, i seriously doubt this will come to pass.

I am somewhat skeptical of it happening as well, but its possible.

secondly, even if it does, the movie can be promoted, just without pictures of George Bush in the commercials.

it is a commentary piece. should Sean Hannity commericals be restricted by the election reform law? should Ann Coulter or Al Franken not be able to do book tours without it counting towards one of the respective parties?

There is an exception for the press which Hannity would probably get by on. Regarding the other two, if they don't qualify for the press exception, then potentially if they have broadcast ads that talk about the candidates then those ads may fall under the regulation.

i know the legislation is particularly about television advertising, but regardless, Michael Moore, Lions Gate Films, and Miramax are not entities that are financed by the Democratic party.

Pretty sure the law isn't restricted to just political parties.

Should George Bush have to "credit" the time his speeches get on CNN (he probably has at least 4-5 live events a week that are broadcast live on the major cable outlets). Should his campaign have to be "debted" for the value of that airtime? (there are real dollar values that are relatively easy to calculate, etc).

This part of the law, if I understand it correctly, isn't about financing. Its a straight prohibition of broadcast ads talking about the candidates for the specified time before the election. As mentioned before, the press gets an exemption. A pretty arbitrary exemption I might add. Why should the press be able to go on talking about the election but if Joe Citizen wants to buy some airtime to express his view (and a network is willing to sell it to him) why should he be restricted?

Anyway, i think this falls outside the borders of that legislation - or it certainly should. I say that from my position of legal obliviousness.

If it does fall outside the legislation, then we may very well see more of it in the future. What is to stop the Republican or Democrat parties (or more likely an entity outside the party but sympathetic to one) from making a documentary before an election and using advertising for the film as de-facto campaign ads?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 29, 2004, 5:58 pm

definitely that is a danger Chmee. there could be a huge industry of "non-political entities" pumping out propaganda in various media that were indirectly related to the campaign.

I think though that the success of Moore and "9/11" are more of an aberation than a business model though. He is just about the only 'documentary' filmmaker who has been able to tap into mainstream commercial success, and the historical and political climate that we are in the midst of right now contributes to a market for this sort of film.

But yeah i can see the soft money piling up in smoke filled rooms as we speak