In 2008, a conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization called Citizens United produced a controversial film titled “Hillary: The Movie”. Then, the group released TV commercials about it as part of its PR efforts. Citizens United's purpose with this movie was supposedly to inform and educate the public about Hillary Clinton. Especially important, Clinton embarked on a Presidential campaign around the same time. She sought to become both the first woman major party Presidential candidate and more importantly, the first woman U.S. President. Citizens United categorically stated that the film did not urge the electorate to vote against Clinton. They merely discussed the record, qualifications, and history of someone who had held public office. …show more content…
They argued that BCRA was not applicable to the film Hillary: The Movie due to First Amendment rights. The defendant, FEC, on the other hand, argued that the film was “electioneering communication.” The film portrayed Clinton as a power hungry individual who would use her power to frustrate her political opponents. What is more, quell scandals that would sully her name. Indeed, Citizens United produced a slanted film. Moreover, the film depicted her as a savior, constantly protecting her husband former President Clinton from scandals. The movie discussed Clinton accepting donations from questionable donors, some even under …show more content…
The film questioned whether she was the most qualified person to run for the presidency. Also, it implied that she cannot make a good president as she failed as New York senator. According to the film, a significant number of New Yorkers left the state due to economic constraints during her duty. From the film, Clinton increased taxes so that the government would offer a better healthcare plan. The film claimed she lacked common courtesy since on numerous occasions she did not greet her subjects. One person in the film claimed she put up a façade in the public eye, but behind closed doors, she is different. Such implications reveal partisan allegations as they aim to suggest that she is a person who lacked integrity. Therefore, she cannot become President of the United States. The public derided the film with harsh reactions after its release claiming its propaganda. Nonetheless, major civil society organizations such as the Annenberg Public Policy Center went ahead and analyzed the movie through itsfactcheck.org project. They stated “this [movie] contains a lot of false, unproven and misleading material”. Overall, deemed biased the film advocated Clinton's defeat by the public. First presented as a case at the Columbia District Court, the judges ruled that the film was electioneering communication. They stated it was an attempt to convince people to vote against Clinton. The judges claimed that they could not
...nsible for the content of this advertising.” Citizens United, aware that the airing of Hillary during the 2008 primaries would be illegal, tried to obtain an injunction to preclude the Federal Election Commission from enforcing the McCain-Feingold Act, claiming that sections 201, 203, and 311 of the law violated the First Amendment. The Federal Election Commission, despite Citizens United’s efforts, held that broadcast of Hillary would violate the McCain-Feingold Act and proceeded to ban the film from airing on television. Citizens United, seeking injunctive relief, decided to bring its case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. However, upon discovering that the United States District Court for the District of Columbia had denied its application, Citizens United decided to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Wines, Michael. "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: THE AD CAMPAIGN; Clinton: Reminding Voters of a Promise." New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast) ed.Oct 03 1992. ProQuest. Web. 8 Mar. 2014 .
The Federal Election Campaign Act, despite being backed by 75 percent of House Republicans, and 41 percent of Senate Republicans, caused immense controversy in Washington. Senator James Buckley sued the secretary of the senate Frances Valeo on the Constitutionality of FECA. In the end, the court upheld the law's contribution limits, presidential public financing program, and disclosure provisions. But they removed limits on spending, including independent expenditures, which is money spent by individuals or outside groups independent of campaigns. This shaped most major campaign financing rulings, including Citizen’s United.
With this movie being based on the nonfiction book titled All the President’s Men, the governmental aspects of the film were very true. The corruptness of this extensive story makes it seem almost as though it is fiction and unable to happen, but this was an important piece of history and it very much did so occur. There are several aspects from this film that directly relate with things we have learned in class, including the characteristics of governmental officials in Washington D.C., the process of being elected president of the United States, the supreme court, and the process for impeachment of a
James Carville’s chief priority has been to defend Bill Clinton since Carville became the chief campaign strategist for Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign. In an interview with Katie Couric on Today, Carville asserts his motives:
She uses strong words to evolve her speech. “We must respect the choices that each woman makes for herself”,” Every women deserves”. When she uses these words(respect and deserves) the message is clear. Clinton is fighting for women rights, she takes this topic in a serious way. It is a commitment she has and wants everyone to listen.
The first lady appears to be trustworthy, in that she holds true to her contract of marriage although her husband has made and abomination of the sacred agreement. The marriage now, however, may actually be more political, but Mrs. Clinton makes it seem that she is not giving up on the marriage, a strong virtue especially in today's society. Mrs. Clinton is also a great liberal and advocates for many minority groups such as homosexuals. This appearance, whether it be true or false, appeals to the greater number of her constituents who are increasingly liberal.
The goal of Hillary’s speech is to persuade her audience that her ideas are valid, by using ethos, pathos, and logos. Hillary is the First Lady and Senator, she shows credibility as an influential activist for woman rights. “Over the past 25 years, I have worked persistently on issues relating to women, children, and families. Over the past two and a half years, I’ve had the opportunity to learn more about the challenges facing women in my country and around the world” (Clinton 2).
Clinton repeats the words “If women” followed by “will” (Clinton), this gives the audience a reason to accept her propositions. Good outcomes come with good actions. When she concluded her speech, Hillary kept using the repetition of the words dignity, respect, family and children. Clinton’s credibility is not questioned when she says she has been working in the case, “Over the past 25 years, I have worked persistently on issues relating to women, children, and families” (Clinton) this is the way she knows about women and their necessities, “I’ve had the opportunity to learn more about the challenges facing women in my country and around the world” (Clinton).Her goal is definite, “To strengthen families and societies by empowering women to take greater control over their own destinies”( Clinton). This change will not only affect women, but everyone who surrounds them.
One strategy she uses to connect herself with her audience is giving her audience a lot of credit and respect. She often assumes she knows what they want, and that what they want is what she is offering to give. When speaking on her husband and the Lewinsky sex scandal, Hillary Clinton makes it seem as if the American people are above discussing such immature topics as the affair and the allegations, and that they instead are interested in the State of the Union Address.
With that being said, I believe Hillary Clinton to be a completely credible author, since she has the proof to present herself as such. The ethos displayed in the commercial, or simply by hearing Hillary Clinton’s name and thinking of her qualifications, gives the viewer a solid idea of what type of author they are receiving a new point of view
On the other side, the institution argued that the speech in question was mindless, lacking artistic expression and that the First Amendment protections are only applicable if the entertainment has a message likely to be understood by a “particular audience” (pg. 4). To examine whether or not the speech was protected and thus granted First Amendment protection, the court utilized an expressive conduct test from Texas v. Johnson. In this case, it was important to note that the entertainment quality, or lack thereof, is not examined through the test. The test states that expressive conduct occurs when “the intent to convey a message can be inferred from the conduct and the circumstances surrounding it” (pg. 4). The circumstances surrounding this particular event are that it was a philanthropic event that partnered fraternities and sororities together to raise money for charities.
Some people believe her values are “a result of having lived through the depression” (Harris 673). She has seen the worst and hopes to make things better for her people. As a child, Clinton was “earning merit badges in girl scouts and starring in the girls softball league” (Harris 674). She has always believed women were smart and strong. Earning badges and playing sports might not seem like much, but it taught a young Clinton that women can do anything they set their mind to. Clinton went off to college and met her husband Bill Clinton there. As the couple got older, Bill decided he wanted to run for president. Hillary “went to Indiana to coordinate the campaign” (Harris 678) for Bill. From the start to the end of Bill’s presidency, Hillary was “extremely active in government affairs” (Hurley 204). She “[emphasized] the need for a global feminist agenda” (Hurley 204-205). Even though Bill was the president, Hillary applied herself as if she were the president. She encouraged equality for genders. Her speech “Women’s Rights Are Human Rights” was given right in the middle of Bill’s presidency. She used her economic power to create awareness of the gender inequality in the
She was able to deliver such an exceptional speech because of her knowledge and credibility on the topic. Clinton is a woman and frequently has to deal with her own right to be treated as equal to men. Politics is viewed as a man 's job, viewing women as though they cannot do as good of a job as men. Clinton has also traveled the women talking to many women about the struggles they encounter, “Over the past 25 years, I have worked persistently on issues relating to women, children, and families. Over the past two and a half years, I 've had the opportunity to learn more about the challenges facing women in my own country and around the world” (Clinton). The Women’s rights battle is an important topic for Clinton. She was able to see, first hand, mothers fighting for healthcare, education, food, and safer housing and town for themselves and their children. By adding her own experience and knowledge on top of the heartbreaking facts and struggles of women makes this speech even more
The censorship of film has been an issue since the Supreme Court made the notorious ruling on the case of Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial commission of Ohio on February 23, 1915. The case, which was initially about restricting commerce rather then freedom of speech, was brought to the Supreme Court after being rejected at the state level. In 1915, film censorship was done on the state level and The Mutual Fil...