Hacker News Reader

Because ultimately a spending limit boils down to "you're not allowed to air this film" because you already spent too much. In fact, that's exactly what the Citizens United case was. We have a Bill of Rights which guarantees that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, the right of the people to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

View on HN

This.

It drives me crazy that people don't understand Citizens United was about free speech. And most people who say they don't like the ruling reverse positions once I explain exactly what it was about. Stopping a film maker from making or airing a political film seems horrible to me.

have public tv "air this film"? of course, you need strong democratic institutions like said public tv.

What this amounts to is Michael Moore now has to make his movies for $2700 (assuming that's the limit) instead of the $20 million he's making them for now.

The reason Citizens United was decided the way it was is because it costs money to make movies, and even if you somehow allocate public money towards the distribution of the film on PBS or whatever, you're still insisting that the movie makers aren't allowed to spend more of their money to make the movie to their own standards.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com