From the PRIsm Political update:

Book-banning, freedom of speech, corporate contributions, public disclosure - the Citizens United v. FEC (Federal Election Commission) case currently before the US Supreme Court has all of this and more, including a surprise ending.
 
SCOTUS announced on Monday that it is taking what can only be described as extraordinary action that will potentially lead to a constitutional review of the McCain-Feingold Bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA).  The Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, stated that a new round of oral arguments has been scheduled for September 9th, thus expanding the of eventual ruling to possibly include whether the Act itself is constitutional.
 
Citizens United, led by long time conservative activist David Bossie, produced a documentary film during the 2008 Democratic primary season entitled “Hillary - The Movie.”  Like Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 911″ hitting the marketplace in 2004, the Citizens United movie was to be released on DVD, Pay-Per-View, and in certain theatres.  Viewers were paying to view the documentary and it, like Fahrenheit 911, was portrayed by its creators as containing a message that did not explicitly advocate election or defeat of a political candidate, but certainly depicted their subject in a negative light.
 
The FEC contended the movie advocated the defeat of Hillary Clinton for President despite not using the “magic words” of “vote for or against.”  The FEC claimed the film and Citizens United should be brought under their jurisdiction; that disclosure reports would have to be filed, federal election law adhered to, and that contributors and/or investors’ identities and contribution or investment amounts must be made public.  Citizens United argued their case based upon 1st Amendment grounds and that their organization, like Moore’s as was stated in the FEC’s own previous ruling, qualified for the BCRA media exemption. 
 
Controversy arose during oral arguments when Department of Justice deputy solicitor Malcolm Stewart, representing the FEC, answered questions posed by Justice David Souter. In responding to the Associate Justice’s queries, Stewart said that under BCRA, the US government, in the guise of the FEC, has the authority to even ban corporate or labor union funded books whose message, in the opinion of certain government speech regulators, does not conform to the parameters as outlined in the Act.  These statements seemed to take the Court by surprise and could have contributed to the Justices wanting to take what appears to be a broader look at the law’s constitutionality.
 
The Court specifically wants the attorneys to provide briefs about previous rulings concerning limits on corporate and labor union spending as it relates to political campaigns.  Should the Court decide to overturn large portions of McCain-Feingold, the previous system of unlimited spending through 527 organizations without disclosure could possibly be re-installed, thus freeing up individuals and organizations to more freely participate in the electoral process.  What will not happen, based upon the scope of what the Court wants to consider, is a ruling that will allow the major national party organizations to again raise non-federal monies.  

 
It is clear the Court’s unusual step in ordering a re-hearing and outlining the scope of the arguments it wants to hear might be an indication of a major ruling that will again fundamentally change the way political speech is funded and governed.  The decision will likely come in the early part of next year, meaning any new changes will affect the 2010 elections.
 
What began as a rather narrow case affecting one political movie may have blossomed into a wide-ranging decision that will greatly alter the American political system.