'Fahrenheit 9/11' violates campaign-finance law?

A Republican-allied soft money group filed a complaint today against Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11," charging TV or radio ads for the film would violate the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law.

The new regulations approved by Congess bar corporate-funded ads that identify a federal candidate before a primary or general election.

The complaint to the Federal Election Commission comes as the FEC's general counsel issues an advisory stating political documentary filmmakers cannot air television or radio ads referring to federal candidates within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.

If the six-member commission agrees with the opinion at its meeting today, Moore would not be allowed to air any ad mentioning Bush after July 30.

That's because the FEC regards the Republican presidential convention, scheduled to begin Aug. 30, as a national political primary.

The multi-part complaint by Citizen's United, emphasizes that Moore has acknowledged his movie, which opens tomorrow, is an effort to defeat President Bush for reelection in November.

In the new campaign-finance law, Section 100.29 bars corporate funded ads that identify a candidate by "name, nickname, photograph or drawing" or make it "otherwise apparent through an unambiguous reference."

David N. Bossie, president of Citizens United, told The Hill newspaper Moore has publicly stated his goal to influence he election.

"I don't think much of Michael Moore or his two-hour political advertisement -- that's all it is," Bossie said. "He uses all of these words to make it look like he makes documentaries, but it's the furthest thing from the truth. Documentaries tend to be fact-based."

Bossie, former chief investigator for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform and Oversight during the Clinton administration, is author of "The Many Faces of John Kerry," a critical political biography of the presidential candidate, newly released by WND Books.

Moore's spokeswoman, Sarah Greenberg of Lions Gate Films, did not return the paper's call for comment.

In May, Moore told reporters after winning the Palme d'Or prize at the Cannes Film Festival, "I did not set out to make a political film. ... The art of this, the cinema, comes before the politics."

Last night, however, he had a different message when he spoke to a crowd outside a Washington theater where prominent Democrats screened the film.

"We're all in the same boat and we all have a job to do," he said. "And if we do it, this country will be back in the hands of the majority."

The FEC counsel's draft advisory opinion addresses the question of whether documentary films qualify for a "media exemption" from the campaign-finance law. It was submitted in response to a request from documentary film producer David Hardy, who asked whether he could air broadcast ads that refer to congressional officeholders who appear in his documentary, The Hill reported.

The general counsel wrote: "In McConnell vs. FEC … (2003) the [Supreme] Court described the media exemption as 'narrow' and drew a distinction between 'corporations that are part of the media industry' as opposed to 'other corporations that are not involved in the regular business of imparting news to the public.'"

The counsel concluded: "The radio and television commercials that you describe in your request would be electioneering communications,” the counsel concluded. “The proposed commercials would refer to at least one presidential candidate. … They would also be publicly distributed because you intend to pay a radio station and perhaps a television station to air or broadcast your commercials. … Finally, they would reach 50,000 people within 30 days of a national nominating convention and or the general election."

The Capitol Hill newspaper said one FEC commissioner, Michael Toner, believes the law does not restrict political films.

"I think there's evidence that when Congress created the press exemption they intended for it to cover media in all its forms," said Toner. "If a documentary produced by an independent company would be subject to restriction or, equally important, if efforts to promote the documentary would be subject to restriction, I think that is very problematic."