more on Is does advertising for Fahrenheit 9/11 face realistic threat from FEC?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Paul Levy <plevy () citizen org>
Date: June 25, 2004 11:51:40 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: Is does advertising for Fahrenheit 9/11 face realistic threat 
from FEC?

Before we go on about how this shows flaws in McCain Feingold, and about
whether somebody might  bring an interesting as-applied challenge to the
application of McCain Feingold to broadcast ads for Fahrenheit 9/11,
could we ask whether there is any realistic likelihood that this
prohibition would be applied?  Have the Weinstein brothers orgnanized
themselves as a corporation for the purpose of distributing this film
(we know they aren't a union)?    As I understand it, the prohibition
applies only to ads by corporations and unions.  For example, if Michael
Moore runs an otherwise covered ad as an individual, and does not pay
for them with corporate money, the prohibition would not apply, although
he would still have to report them as "electioneering communications"
(assuming they met the definition).

Next, do the broadcast advertisements for the film mention George W
Bush or show his image?  Presumably, if the distributors ran the full
trailer, it would show Bush, but would a thirty-second TV or radio ad?
The print ad that I have seen does not mention Bush (and print ads are
not covered anyway).  The fact that the movie itself mentions Bush does
not mean that ads for the movie would be covered by the statutory
provision in question.



Paul Alan Levy
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 588-1000
http://www.citizen.org/litigation/litigation.html

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/