Supreme Court Watch

" The Supreme Court -- for the first time by justice Sonia Sotomayor heard arguments this week and a case that could -- historic blow for political free speech. And again -- campaign finance restrictions the case involves a documentary. Made by -- conservative group last year about then senator and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Funded by a group called citizens united. Hillary -- movie was intended to be shown on cable TV during the primary season. And that got it caught in the net of campaign finance laws such as McCain Feingold that controlled political advertising a federal court ruled that the film was up. Thinly veiled political attack at. And thus restricted by those campaign -- we're back with Dan -- her. Also joining us opinion journal dot com editor James Toronto and senior editorial page writer Colin Levy well -- you. Listen to -- or -- oral arguments -- the court this week. Are we poised for five justices overturning these up precedents."

" Yeah I think there's a good chance -- that could happen this is something where we've watched in the past. But certain amount of reticence from Chief Justice John Roberts as well as justice Samuel Alito in taking big steps to. Revisit some of these campaign finance restrictions that this is a case. Where because this is a movie and it's the kind of band that the government has also said could sort of slide into books. That we're seeing. A real opportunity for. The justices to take a hard look at how. That these sort of restrictions against spending -- can become restrictions on speech."

" Now the for government conceded that an earlier stage that in fact books could be implicated here if if if the visit and under the under the FEC the federal election commission's interpretation of the statute."

" Yes that's true and they sort of backed off that slightly. In this instance that is very hard to draw a bright line between. Why a documentary should be able to be regulated and a book can't be so once you start regulating speech this is something that's -- very very iffy territory."

" Now -- this was not an Academy Award winner as a movie. But. So not a great piece of literature art on the other hand this would seem to be the kind of thing. Weighing in on a political campaign that that the constitution expressly designed to."

" Protect well it's worth putting this in a broader context right America has an extremely. Broad interpretation of freedom of speech so -- Very few limits if the if -- citizens united and made a porno movie. It would have been protected by the First Amendment if it made a movie advocating racial violence it would have been protected by the First Amendment under 1969 -- this is an exception it's an anomaly. Why did -- make an exception for this because it might influence the outcome of an election. Because well financed by corporate money right right that's the key issue but right under McCain -- well because of as far as -- corporate money but also because it's political because it might affect the outcome. I'm an election but what do they think the First Amendment is floor. But to influence politics. And so Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 9/11. Which was an attack on the bush administration and Republicans that could've. Probably -- been banned under this kind of interpretation too well there's an exception for media companies so Fox News Channel in The Wall Street Journal com whatever we want. Miramax can put out Fahrenheit 9/11 which was actually very similar movie albeit with some degree of -- and production value. -- but side I'm so there is this exception to New York Times editorialized this week in favor obvious restriction New York Times endorses candidates. Not every year tells people how to vote on -- for office -- of anyone listens to them bunch. So some corporations are more equal than others right."

" Restraints and it's been -- and -- and did with that did that come up and did -- end at the at the Supreme Court at all column this week that kind of distinction."

" Yet it did and I think that that's the key point here which is that this is -- case where they have to decide whether the government can censor certain speakers but not others I think. You know what what John Roberts in particular was listening for with the idea that the First Amendment either protects everyone's -- it doesn't."

" You know strikes me -- beautiful and news it's almost similar -- health care debate in the sense that our viewers watch these subjects we discussed. And you get tangled up in this incredible complexity all the time this is about. Funding campaigns right but the that you end up with a Supreme Court case of this sort of play and actually isn't that the arms of the politicians who know the -- of the public -- process I don't care meanwhile their rights are eroded. Without them really know well I think it has explains a lot why we have the sort of campaigns we do. The fundamental problem with this system is that individuals. Are restricted from giving more than 2100 dollars to a candidate in an election cycle right that's the basic. Bright look a limitation so as a result you have all of these forces trying to start find ways around that. But -- fact is that we have. And people complain about -- all -- our candidates either tend to be people who have our. Our professional candidates they don't hold any office or you have billionaires who fund their own campaigns make it very difficult for the average guy or woman. To the launch a presidential campaign. "

" James Justice Kennedy -- has -- been developing -- jurisprudence of individual liberty a lot of cases do you think of this place in in this case -- to him siding with with very very conservative."

" Well yes especially because side that was society took he was a dissenter is usually listening mode but he was a -- in both of the -- one going next 1990 and one in 2003 doing with the can't find goals. So the real question is Alito and Roberts who probably will come not in favor of free speech but just haven't gone that far yet."

" what are we learn about justice -- your. During the oral argument."

" Well I think we learned that she's going to be about what people expected she's always. Anyone who's wanted to stick closely to president when -- what people talk about and here. The precedent is for restricting speech so she seemed to be willing to hold onto that."

" Okay of course campaign finance laws I think -- one of the great offenses against the constitution and with any luck they'll will get five to through these sort of precedence -- all right thank you win."