[skh]

It had nothing to do with whether or not it was by a bona fide film maker. It was the timing of the ad and the fact that the movie was going to be broadcast. Movies in theaters were not covered by the law. Your premise is incorrect. The decision could have been narrow in scope. It wasn't. This is what people like me decry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeGlzEavpTM

[mc32]

Here from the Wikipedia backgrounder:

>In response, Citizens United produced the documentary Celsius 41.11, which is highly critical of both Fahrenheit 9/11 and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. The FEC, however, held that showing the movie and advertisements for it would violate the Federal Election Campaign Act, because Citizens United was not a bona fide commercial film maker.

[skh]

Disallowing a film being shown 60 days before an election because the person is not a bona fide film maker is very much different than disallowing a film 60 before an election because the person is not a bona fide commercial film maker. The word commercial is important. Citizen's United was not a commercial enterprise. No one disputes this. No one thinks their film wasn't done by a bona fide film maker.

[mc32]

It would seem that unnecessary distinction has severe first amendment rights implications.

[skh]

Exactly. That's why we should just dispense with the facade of elections and have the Fortune 500 companies decide who will be President. The free speech rights are too severely restricted if there is a rule that applies equally to everyone that regulates political ads 60 days before an election. It's just too suffocating to live in such a system. Hopefully we can export of our freedom to Europe and get them to get rid of their electioneering laws. Then they too will be free like us.