This weekend, at the Breakers Resort in Palm Beach, a veritable who's who of conservative power-players and heavy-hitters converged to discuss, debate, relax and honor three their own. From Thursday, 11/19 to Sunday, 11/22 the David Horowitz Freedom Center's 'Restoration Weekend' drew together conservative politicians, pundits, authors, analysts and icons from around the nation.
Some of the speakers and guests that attended this gala event were: the host David Horowitz, former-Speaker of the House-Newt Gingrich, author-Ann Coulter, former-presidential candidate and US Senator-Fred Thompson, Phyllis Schlafly, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, State Representative Adam Hasner, Pamela Geller-of Atlas Shrugs, House Minority Leader-John Boehner, Democratic Strategist-Pat Caddell, Scott Wheeler, Andrew Klavan, George Gilder, Jonah Goldberg, Robert Spencer, Frank Gaffney, Steve Moore-of the Wall Street Journal, Andrew McCarthy, Bruce Bawer, Congressmen Ed Royce and Thaddeus McCotter, Major General Paul Vallely, Liz Cheney, Michael Ledeen, Dave Bossie and US Senator Jim DeMint.
There was a moving tribute video celebrating the late Ron Silver and then there was the great Citizens United Film Festival, which included 'Perfect Valor' and 'Ronald Reagan Rendezvous with Destiny'. The Freedom Center's 'Restoration Weekend' was a fantastic gathering of some of the best conservative minds in America. It was a pleasure having this group of exceptional Americans in our backyard.
David Bossie's Response to Senators McCain and Feingold's Remarks on CU v. FEC
"To accept Senators McCain and Feingold's remarks on the Senate floor yesterday at face value would require an objective listener to turn a blind eye to the facts at hand. Senator Feingold took an alarmist tone, warning that elections would somehow turn into corporate sponsored events like a NASCAR race. But that statement belies a willful ignorance of elections, such as the one about to take place in Virginia, in which corporate spending is legal and no allegations of any impropriety have been made.
"Senator McCain's umbrage at Justice Scalia's observation that Congress is self-interested, and that his comment in that regard is 'an affront to the thousands of good, decent, honorable men and women who have served this nation in these halls' similarly defies reason and logic. If a simple statement by a Justice of the Supreme Court can impugn the integrity of every man and woman who has served in Congress, what of a law that, at its essence, is a testament to Senators McCain and Feingold's apparent belief that Members of Congress lack the integrity to resist corporate influence?
"But most fundamentally, Congress is tasked with passing legislation and the Supreme Court's job is to determine whether or not those laws infringe on the fundamental rights delineated by the Constitution. The restrictions on free speech that Senators McCain and Feingold so passionately defended yesterday led the government to state in open court that the only thing standing in the way of banning commercially published books containing the phrase 'vote for X' was that the legislature had not yet passed such a law. Such a law cannot be far down the long and slippery slope that Senators McCain and Feingold so proudly grease under the guise of campaign finance reform legislation.
"It is my hope that the Supreme Court will recognize the dangers that lay ahead if we continue on our current path and put an end to the pattern of unconstitutional attempts by the legislature to erode our First Amendment rights as citizens of the United States."
Rediscovering God In America II: Our Heritage, hosted by Newt and Callista Gingrich, Premiered Friday 9/25
Find out more about the much-anticipated sequel! The film explores the role of religion in early America and the belief that our Creator is the source of our liberty, prosperity, and survival as an exceptional nation.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."
The Framers' clear intent was first and foremost to protect political speech. Today, in a rare summer session, the Supreme Court will hear arguments as to whether it should overrule two previous, and in my opinion incorrectly decided, rulings on political free speech. Namely, the justices will decide whether or not to allow Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce and a significant section of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, to stand, and in doing so, how far the First Amendment goes to protect the right of organizations to support or criticize candidates for federal office.
In 2007, Citizens United, the grass-roots advocacy group that I head, produced a documentary titled "Hillary The Movie" about Hillary Rodham Clinton and sought to show, sell and promote the film when public interest in it would be at its height in January 2008. Unfortunately for us (and our film sales), under federal election law, we could produce our film but could not advertise its existence on television and radio, nor could we give cable subscribers the opportunity to view the film in an "on demand" format.
The legal basis for banning our movie from the airwaves is that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law prohibits corporations from engaging in political speech and that Citizens United, though a nonprofit corporation, is still a corporation, and all corporate money is banned, no matter what.
Public discussion about the character and fitness for office of presidential candidates is at the core of the First Amendment's command that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the Freedom of Speech." Yet Congress, in its zeal to impose onerous campaign-finance restrictions, has made political speech a felony for one class of speakers. Corporations and unions can face up to five years in prison for broadcasting candidate-related advocacy during federal elections.
Is outlawing political speech based on the identity of the speaker compatible with the First Amendment? Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear arguments to determine the answer to this question.
The case—Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission—involves a 90-minute documentary produced by Citizens United, a small nonprofit advocacy corporation. "Hillary: The Movie" examines the record, policies and character of the former New York senator, now Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton. The documentary was set to be broadcast during Mrs. Clinton's presidential primary campaign. But the broadcast was banned when the Federal Election Commission declared that the broadcast would violate the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
"'Enough is enough.'... When the government of the United States of America claims the authority to ban books because of their political speech, something has gone terribly wrong and it is as sure a sign as any that a return to first principles is in order." Read More Brief Excerpts
Earlier this year, at Supreme Court oral argument in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the government raised eyebrows by arguing that it believed that it can constitutionally ban the publication of books (if, as is always the case, the publisher is a corporation) that contain even one line arguing for the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office. The government based its belief on the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld a blanket ban on corporate political spending in order to prevent "distortion" of campaigns. Faced with the full constitutional ramifications of Austin - for the government's position flows naturally from Austin - the Supreme Court asked the parties to reargue the case on September 9, to consider whether Austin should be overruled.
Austin was based on the assumption that the government could limit some speech in order to enhance the voices of others, although the case tried not to frame it that way. Rather, the Austin Court argued it was dealing with a "different type of corruption, the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth… ." To most people, that sounds like an egalitarian argument, not one about "corruption." Which would be fine - it is perfectly acceptable to favor things on egalitarian grounds - except that the First Amendment to the Constitution appears to forbid the government from making such determinations.
On the last scheduled day of the Court's term in June, the Court issued an order in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission requiring the parties to brief whether the Court should overturn two cases upholding corporate (and union) independent spending in candidate elections: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the relevant portion of McConnell v. FEC.
The briefs were filed Friday. I have now had a chance to review the government's supplemental brief and Citizen United's supplemental brief. (Amicus briefs are due Friday, and simultaneous reply briefs are due August 19).
There is much to like about the government's brief, and I have more about that below. But let me begin with the most interesting feature of the brief: the government does not even mention the central holding of Austin, much less defend it. To put this in context, before Austin, in Buckley v. Valeo the Court had held that contributions to candidates could be limited because of the government's interest in preventing the corruption of elected officials (through quid pro quos and otherwise) and the appearance of such corruption, but that independent spending by individuals could not be limited consistent with the First Amendment. With truly independent spending, the Court in Buckley said, the link to corruption of candidates is too tenuous, and the costs to freedom of speech and association too high to justify such limits. Buckley did not deal with corporate spending limits, but in a 1981 case, First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Court held that corporate spending limits in ballot measure elections, in which candidates are not involved, are unconstitutional. In Austin, however, the Court held that corporate spending limits are constitutional.
Solicitor General Elena Kagan plans to make her first argument before the Supreme Court on Sept. 9 in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the so-called "Hillary - The Movie" case. Justice Department spokeswoman Beverley Lumpkin today confirmed reports that Kagan plans to argue the case.
It's the oral argument the Supreme Court ordered as it recessed for the summer, to consider whether Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and part of McConnell v. FEC should be overturned. The scheduling of the rare summer argument alarmed supporters of campaign finance reform who fear the Court is preparing to overturn the ban on use of corporate or union treasury money for independent campaign expenditures. Briefs on the issues set forth by the Court are due this week.
Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart represented the government in the first oral argument in March as we reported here, arguing that a movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton that was funded by corporate money should be regarded as an "electioneering communication" regulated under the McCain-Feingold law. Stewart ran into trouble, however, when he seemingly acknowledged that the law could also in theory justify the banning of campaign-related books in some circumstances. That drew dubious reactions from several justices.
In the September argument Kagan will face one of her predecessors: former SG Theodore Olson, now with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, who will argue for Citizens United, sponsors of the movie. As SG under President George W. Bush, Olson defended the law he now challenges.
In a sign that the Supreme Court is seriously considering overturning one of the underpinnings of modern campaign finance rules, Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday announced that justices would rehear a case challenging restrictions on corporate-funded campaign ads. The result of the argument, which is scheduled for September 9, could reshape the way American political campaigns are waged on the precipice of the 2010 midterm and the 2012 presidential elections.
The case in question, Citizens United v. FEC, deals with whether federal election laws should have applied to a 90-minute film released during last year's presidential election lambasting then-New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.
Read the Article
Speaker Newt Gingrich Praises Citizens United During Keynote Speech
Perfect Valor Wins Best Feature Documentary at GI Film Festival
Citizens United Productions is proud to announce that its latest documentary, Perfect Valor, narrated by Senator Fred Thompson, has won the prestigious "Best Feature Documentary" award at the 2009 GI Film Festival in Washington, DC.
Perfect Valor, Citizens United Productions' 11th feature documentary, is the story of Operation Phantom Fury, the 2004 battle for the control of Fallujah. Throughout this operation, American troops battled through a city of enemy insurgents, fighting house to house and street to street to seize control of the most dangerous city in the world.
Past winners of the GI Film Festival's "Best Feature Documentary" award include Academy Award finalist Operation Homecoming in 2007 and Brothers At War, currently in theatrical release, in 2008.
Breitbart's Big Hollywood Reviews "Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny"
Hosted and narrated by Newt and Callista Gingrich, "Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous With Destiny" looks at the life and varied careers of America's 40th President and would make an excellent primer for anyone interested in what made the great man tick and the incredible legacy he left behind. Well paced and insightful, the 90 minute documentary presents a number of brand new interviews with, to name a few, Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, James Baker, Linda Chavez, Bill Bennett, P.J. O'Rourke, Michael Reagan and Edwin Meese, along with ABC newsman Sam Donaldson, who had the White House beat during Reagan's two terms, biographer's Douglas Brinkley and Lou Cannon, and Poland's Lech Walesa. Read the full review ...
Tom Borelli, Director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project and castmember of Blocking "The Path to 9/11", confronted Disney CEO Robert Iger at Disney's annual shareholder meeting over his refusal to allow distribution of the 2006 ABC Miniseries "The Path to 9/11".
NY Times - Documentary on Clinton Tests Campaign Finance Law
WASHINGTON — It has been about a decade since the Supreme Court considered a case arising from the tangle of lawsuits and investigations that once threatened to engulf the administration of President Bill Clinton.
The nation may have moved on, but the court has not. Next month, as Hillary Rodham Clinton settles in as secretary of state, the court will have a look at "Hillary: The Movie," a scathingly hostile look at Mrs. Clinton in the tradition of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."
The case, to be argued March 24, will require the court to confront a new genre with old roots: the slashing political documentary. Read More ...
Attorney General Holder’s announcement that the United States will try confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (“KSM”), Waleed bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa... Read More
Many great leaders and millions and millions of people yearning for freedom and basic human rights were responsible for the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989. The... Read More
How pathetic. A piece in today's Washington Post on Dede Scozzafava tells the story of her betrayal to the entire Republican Party and classifies it as Republican dysfunction.... Read More
Today, Citizens United joined Renewing American Leadership (ReAL), an organization founded by Speaker Newt Gingrich, in an amicus curiae brief urging the Supreme... Read More
Citizens United Productions latest documentary, Perfect Valor, narrated by actor, Westwood One Radio host, and former Senator Fred Thompson, will make its world debut... Read More
