I thought about putting this in GQ but somehow I suspect that there might be conflicting opinions, hence a debate.
I, myself, don’t pretend to know enough about the law to come to a conclusion as to whether there is any validity to this charge. On one hand, it smacks of pure partisanship. Still though, I wonder if it does cross a line to release a film slamming one of the candidates of an election that is about to occur in just a few months, especially when the only way to promote it involves presenting images of one of the candidates. Is this a freedom of speech issue?
Personally, I tend to lean towards the idea that Moore should be able to make a movie about whatever topic he chooses and should be allowed to advertise his film in whatever format is most effective.
Moore mentioned this on the Daily Show tonight. If this goes through, then it should be equally illegal to advertise the Rush Limbaugh show, or in fact any radio or television program either for or against either candidate. Just to be fair, you see.
You forgot a part. It would be equally illegal to advertise the Rush Limbaugh show or any other show WHEN MENTIONING A CANDIDATE’S NAME. That is, apparently, the problem.
People who read this GD thread might also be interested in: This pit thread
Damn, I looked before I posted this but didn’t see anyone else talking about it. Well, rather than vent perhaps we can stick to debating the issue over here.
I wonder, if Moore was to create ads that stuck to focusing on the criticisms of the Iraq war without naming Bush specifically, would that be acceptable? I mean, regardless of how they sell it, I hardly think that anyone is still in the dark about the subject matter.
It would be easy to edit a trailer without the image of Bush or naming him (it doesn’t name him now).
The problem is that that sort of compromise will never be enough for those people who want this movie truly squashed, buried, and forgotten. Making noise about campaign laws like this is just one way to attack this movie; it doesn’t matter what gets done or not done, so long as Moore is personally inconvenienced.
If it’s not Bush it would be “the troops”. If it wasn’t “the troops” it would be some soccer mom who didn’t want her image used in a crowd scene. Etc.
I have no idea if this is taken into consideration in an issue like this, but the way I see it, he’s not campaigning foranyone…just against Bush. In my mind, it’s a huge difference and therefore not breaking any rules. Do you think that’s valid?
I don’t think it is a partisan issue. The law was written by the Democrats almost exclusively to prevent the NRA from advertising about candidate’s gun voting records. It just so happens that Michael Moore’s mockumentary falls under the criterion for the Act. Tough shit. He can either change the ads, and the title so he stops ripping Bradbury off, or get over it.
Dude, cite? I don’t buy that it was written by the democrats to screw the NRA. Even if it WAS written by the democrats wouldn’t some republicans have had to vote ‘yes’ to pass it?
While it’s not an ‘advertising’ issue I can recall during the 1984 primaries that coverage of the original astronauts at least in one case omitted John Glenn because, in Bob Hope’s words ‘he went up in a capsule and hopes to land in the White House’?
Me? I’d do the obvious and paste some black box, or maybe that blue dot thing from the Kennedy-Smith trial ten years ago, over GWB’s face. That would be funny.
Frankly, this is (IMHO) counter-productive of the group initiating the complaint. All it’ll do is give the movie more free advertising. Hell, it got 2 exclusive minutes on CNN this morning at around 7AM.
Merijeek, none of those would actually work. From here
Moore is no dope, neither are his lawyers, neither are the lawyers of whatever ad company he is using. They all are more than happy to feed off of every scrap of publicity this is generating. They don’t need to advertise that this is an anti-Bush movie, the press is doing it for him every single day.
How much you wanna bet that a doe-eyed Moore “accidentally” puts out a few ads that violate the rule, so he can go on national TV a few more times to profess his ignorance of the rules?
You know, I didn’t have that much respect for Mr. Moore before this. Haven’t the slightest intention of seeing his movie, pretty sure he doesn’t have any surprises for me, any exclusive info not otherwise available.
But seeing how effective he is in getting the Tighty Righties panties all in a bunch, well, damn! he must be doing something right!
He’s still a self-righteous knob, of course. But useful as all get-out!
I didn’t cite because the only ones that say that are from the NRA or it’s proponents. I find it interesting that there is a loophole that allows MoveON.org to show what it wants due to some financing thing. And yes, some republicans voted for it, but not many. Hell, McCain cosponsored it, so I am not saying it is entirely partisan. There are Republicans who don’t like the NRA. But my point is many conservatives and all of the NRA think it is freedom of speech issue, but were voted down, so I don’t think Moore can win where the NRA’s gauntlet o’lawyers haven’t.
Last night in his appearance on The Daily Show, Jon asked him about the controversy and such … his response was “If they are out there listening … by all means PLEASE KEEP DOING THIS!” What better publicity than having the name of your movie all over the front page for a week?
No surprises here that the repubs are all for freedom and democracy (only for those who think like them).
How do you draw that conclusion? Didn’t most Pubs **not want ** this restriction in the first place? It’s the Dems who will whine about it when in fact it’s exactly the kind of “unintended consequence” that ensues when you try to limit free speech.
The thing that annoys me about this news story is that people draw exactly the wrong conclusion from it. It’s painted as nefarious actions by a conservative cabal to subvert the law, when it SHOULD be the perfect illustration of the folly of campaign finance reform.
I gather Moore and his contemporaries think the 30/60 day rule is just peachy keen, except when it gets applied to them. It’s all in whose ox is gored, I suppose.
Indeed. What’s likely gonna happen to Moore is exactly the kind of thing the NRA said was gonna happen if McCain-Feingold was passed and why they so adamantly opposed it. Now, I’m all for a big ole helping of campaign finance reform, and even this aspect of McCain-Feingold isn’t wholly objectionable to me in principle, but the actual implementation of it is looking to be travesty for the American public. It leaves too many things open to interpretation and politicization of the judicial system through the numerous lawsuits that are gonna pop up from both sides. The right is gonna object to Moore’s movie; the left is already objecting to a radio show kicked off by the NRA last week. It’s gonna be a giant clusterfuck. And the cynic in me says, that’s exactly what our esteemed members of Congress in Washington wanted. Every single instance of campaign finance reform had proved to so full of loopholes and unenforceable conditions that you could drive a Presidential Campaign Machine right through the sumbitch.