Anti-Bush popular films are certainly permitted free speeech, but they're also a form of political advertising and should be subject to federal campaign spending disclosure law, argues regular San Francisco Chronicle online columnist Jennifer Nelson.
In "Political Ads Get a Hollywood Disguise," Nelson writes:
Hollywood is in the midst of an anti-George W. Bush feeding frenzy....the industry...is up in arms about the chance that President Bush might be re-elected.In an unprecedented campaign tactic, the entertainment industry has financed and released a handful of films designed to influence the voters' decision on November 2: Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11"; John Sayles' upcoming "Silver City"; "Bush's Brain," a documentary on Bush strategist Karl Rove; George Butler's ("Pumping Iron") pro-Kerry documentary "Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry"; and Robert Greenwald's "Uncovered: The War on Iraq" and "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism."
At what point will these films be considered political advertising?
The films are not simply works of art by writers and actors making a statement about current events. The people associated with the films are very open about the fact that their intent is to influence the election-just like many other public-interest groups in the nation....campaign finance lawyer Tom Hiltachk...says ...New federal guidelines require a content-based analysis of ads. "Timing, intent and content all come in play," says Hiltachk.
This past weekend, "Silver City," a new movie by writer/director John Sayles had its world premiere at the Toronto Film Festival. It opens in the United States on Sept. 17, in hopes of influencing American voters. "Silver City" is a murder mystery whose main character, Dickie Pilager, is a conservative gubernatorial candidate in Colorado.
Sayles told the BBC, "Dickie Pilager is based on George W. Bush when he was running for governor of Texas." Like Bush, Pilager's father is a politician and a Christian, and according to Sayles, he's "grammatically challenged." Sayles has said that he wrote the script last year in two short weeks out of his anger toward Bush.
"I really feel like an awful lot has gone on that is nondemocratic," he told Canada's Globe and Mail. "I've been surprised at how rarely I've heard the word 'war profiteer' in conjunction with what's going on."
Sayles hired actors who shared his anger with Bush. Actress Maria Bello told Entertainment Weekly magazine, "I'd be happy to be part of any film that helps get George Bush out of office."
Sayles isn't just releasing a satire film designed to make the president look bad. He's actively working with anti-Bush groups to promote the film and influence voters in swing states in the crucial weeks before the election.
According to the Canadian Times, Sayles and his organization are working with anti-Bush groups to publicize the film and hopes that MoveOn.org, the anti-Bush group funded by billionaire George Soros, will promote the film. Further, Sayles has told the media that he intends to delay the movie's release in the swing state of Ohio until October and participate in a swing-state bus tour to college campuses.
If a film goes beyond "issues," to impugn a candidate's character as an election draws near, and as the director and actors baldly profess their intent to use the film to affect a specific election, can we then at least be allowed to know the individuals, organizations and amounts involved, via public records? I would hope so. Unlikely this would happen before November, though. At least after the election, Congress could clarify or strengthen McCain-Feingold in this respect, over the predictable cries of Orwellian doom from Hollywood and The Left.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at September 15, 2004 05:26 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rosenblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/511
This seems like a classic slippery slope sort of situation, one put in motion by McCain-Feingold, a piece of legislation that never should have passed and signed.
As pundits like Jonah Goldberg have pointed out, slippery slope arguments are often just hot air. But something like this gives me pause. How long before the 527s -- a direct result of M-F -- are targeted for control?
And if we start saying that movies, etc paid for and funded by private individuals and companies are going to be subject to political control because of their content, well, that's just a scary proposition.
I realize, Matt, that you just raised the idea of forcing artists to reveal who is funding their work, but again, where would that stop? Should anonymous bloggers have to reveal their identities and sources of income?
Free speech should just be just that -- free.
Posted by: Scott at September 15, 2004 07:42 PM