Chairman Zero’s Justice Department has argued before the Supreme Court that book banning is okay under certain circumstances; all in the name of Landslide McCain’s favorite pet issue, Campaign Finance Reform. Jonah Goldberg reports:
Just last week, the Obama administration argued before the Supreme Court that it has no principled constitutional problem with banning books.
The case before the court, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, involves a documentary-style film, Hillary: The Movie, that ran afoul of campaign-finance laws designed to censor so-called stealth ads as well as electioneering paid for by corporations or unions.
Several justices asked the deputy solicitor general, Malcolm Stewart, if there would be any constitutional reason why the ban on documentaries and ads couldn’t be extended to books carrying similar messages. Stewart, speaking for a president who once taught constitutional law, said Congress can ban books “if the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy” for a candidate and was supported, even slightly, with corporate money. Such advocacy, Stewart conceded, could amount to negatively mentioning a politician just once in a 500-page book put out by a mainstream publisher.
Obamacrats went nuts last fall with a false story that Sarah Palin banned books while the mayor of Wasilla. Apparently, that the Dear Teleprompter has no constitutional issue with banning books is no big deal.