WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court voted Friday to hear an election- related case that will decide whether a politically charged film -- in this case "Hillary: The Movie" -- can be regulated as a campaign ad.
The justices said they would hear an appeal from a conservative group that had sought to advertise its anti-Clinton documentary as the New York senator competed for the Democratic presidential nomination.
The Federal Election Commission said the group could not broadcast the film on television or air ads close to the election without running afoul of campaign funding laws.
The McCain-Feingold Act forbids corporate-funded broadcast ads that attack a candidate within a month of a primary or general election. The law also requires political groups to disclose who paid for the ads.
But lawyers for Citizens United, the conservative group, say limits on "core political speech rights" are unconstitutional.
The court also said Friday that it would hear a West Virginia case that has highlighted the role of big money in state high court justice races.
In 2004, the A. T. Massey Coal Co. faced a $50-million verdict in a contract dispute with another coal firm. That year, its president and chief executive gave $3 million to candidate Brent Benjamin's campaign for a seat on the state Supreme Court. Benjamin won the seat; 60% of his funding came from the Massey executive.
Shortly afterward, the West Virginia Supreme Court agreed to hear Massey's appeal in the contract dispute. Despite pleas that he withdraw, Justice Benjamin cast the deciding vote in a 3-2 ruling that overturned the verdict.
Washington lawyer Ted Olson appealed the case on behalf of Harman Mining Corp., the other coal company.
He said Benjamin's refusal to step aside created "an unacceptable appearance of bias." He urged the justices to rule that it violated the Constitution's guarantee of due process of law to permit a judge to accept a huge contribution from a donor and then rule on his case.
Caperton vs. A. T. Massey Coal Co. will be heard in February.
Thirty-nine states elect at least some of their judges. The amount of money spent on state high court races doubled between 1999 and 2006, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. James Sample, a Brennan Center lawyer, called the West Virginia case "an egregious example of a national trend: brazen attempts to purchase influence in pending cases."
