Obama Justice: Some Books Could be Banned

The Obama Justice Department claims that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law gives government the right to ban certain books and films!

No kidding. The editors of the National Review discuss this here.

Now Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart has gone before the Supreme Court arguing that McCain-Feingold gives the government the right to ban books and films. He’s right, it does. And for that reason, McCain-Feingold should be nullified.

If that's not bad enough, Stewart argued that the government has the right to ban books under certain circumstances.

At issue is a film called Hillary: The Movie, a documentary produced by the nonprofit group Citizens United, which did not wish to see Senator Clinton elected president. Because McCain-Feingold prohibits so much as mentioning a candidate’s name in pre-election communications paid for by certain disfavored groups — unions and “corporations” — the filmmakers were informed by a federal judge that showing their work would constitute a crime. The filmmakers sued, and the case is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Mr. Stewart is defending the government’s ban on this film; the same rules that apply to a campaign commercial apply to a documentary film, his reasoning goes. Justice Alito alertly pressed Mr. Stewart on that issue: If commercials and films are covered, how about books? How about campaign biographies? Yes, Mr. Stewart answered, the U.S. government is prepared to ban books, under certain circumstances, and is legally empowered by McCain-Feingold to do so. Jaws dropped, black robes fluttered.

Under the law, it depends on who is paying for those communications, and here the government has two targets, one well defined and one less so. The first group whose speech is suppressed under McCain-Feingold is labor unions. We rarely find ourselves on the same side politically, but we would not see them stripped of their First Amendment rights. The second group is “corporations,” a word that has practically become a term of abuse ...

Put another way, a stripper pole-dancing in Vegas has more robust First Amendment protections under current practice than does a political-advocacy group organized as a nonprofit corporation. [snip] ... Practically every media business and book publisher of any consequence is a corporation under the law. A Supreme Court decision in favor of McCain-Feingold threatens the free-speech rights of most of the organized enterprises engaged in political debate.

The NR editors correctly point out that the liberals in Congress have proposed a "bailout" for newspapers that would further restrict even their right of free speech by prohibiting "endorsement" of candidates.

What can we do about it? Start demanding the repeal of McCain-Feingold. It should not matter whether you are liberal or conservative, a D- or an R-. If you are a real American, you cannot sit idly while our precious liberties are taken from us one by one!