A panel of judges of rules that it’s against campaign finance laws to advertise a film:

Attorney James Bopp argued that they should be considered “issue- oriented” speech because viewers aren’t urged to vote for or against the Democrat.

“What’s the issue?” asked Judge A. Raymond Randolph, a federal appeals judge sitting on a mixed panel to review the case.

“That Hillary Clinton is a European Socialist,’ aren’t you saying vote against her?”

Bopp disagreed because the movie did not use the word “vote.”

“Oh, that’s ridic…,” Lamberth said, trailing off and ending the line of questioning.

Hey, some people (too darned many, in my opinion) like European socialists. Maybe it was a pro-Hillary ad.
It gets better (or worse, depending on your point of view).

The movie is scheduled for two screenings in theaters, once each in California and Washington. It is also being sold on DVD. Neither of those methods are regulated under campaign laws. The advertisements, however, are scheduled to run during the peak presidential primary season and would be regulated.

Bopp, who successfully led a challenge to one aspect of the campaign finance system last year, compared the film to television news programs “Frontline,” “Nova,” and “60 Minutes.” That prompted Lamberth to laugh out loud from the bench.

“You can’t compare this to ’60 Minutes,'” the judge said. “Did you read this transcript?”

Apparently, the judge missed the “Sixty Minutes” episode in which Dan Rather used fake documents to do a hit job on George Bush six weeks before an election.

The Supreme Court should have thrown the law out in toto. But it looks to me, at a minimum, like they’re going to have to at least interpret this (un)Constitutional abomination.