I've been doing some research into how the Republicans tried to stop f9/11 from being shown on tv. Many should remember that the FEC considered blocking the ads and here was the reason why.
http://www.thehill.com/...
Michael Moore may be prevented from advertising his controversial new movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11," on television or radio after July 30 if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) today accepts the legal advice of its general counsel.
At the same time, a Republican-allied 527 soft-money group is preparing to file a complaint against Moore's film with the FEC for violating campaign-finance law.
In a draft advisory opinion placed on the FEC's agenda for today's meeting, the agency's general counsel states that political documentary filmmakers may not air television or radio ads referring to federal candidates within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.
How does this apply to ABC?
Lets take a closer look at the term electioneering communications.
http://www.fec.gov/...
An electioneering communication is any broadcast, cable or satellite communication that fulfills each of the following conditions:
The communication refers to a clearly identified candidate;
The communication is publicly distributed shortly before an election for the office that candidate is seeking; and
The communication is targeted to the relevant electorate (U.S. House and Senate candidates only).
My question does ABC's path to 9/11 fall into any of these three? Keep in mind that it is within a election time. The Docufiction does blame one party. It is also clear that things were made up to blame one party.
http://thinkprogress.org/...
But yesterday, writer and avowed conservative Cyrus Nowrasteh admitted that the films most controversial scene was based on nothing at all. Nowrasteh told a right-wing radio station that the scene was "improvised." From the New York Times:
Mr. Berger's character is also seen abruptly hanging up during a conversation with a C.I.A. officer at a critical moment of a military operation. In an interview yesterday with KRLA-AM in Los Angeles, Cyrus Nowrasteh, the mini-series' screenwriter and one of its producers, said that moment had been improvised.
"Sandy Berger did not slam down the phone," Mr. Nowrasteh said. "That is not in the report. That was not scripted. But you know when you're making a movie, a lot of things happen on set that are unscripted. Accidents occur, spontaneous reactions of actors performing a role take place. It's the job of the filmmaker to say, `You know, maybe we can use that.' "
So is this miniseries which reaches over 50,000 homes being sent out to effect a election and viewpoint that goes in favor of one party?
Here is more of my research into this subject
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...
The Federal Election Commission will have to consider the vagaries of the McCain-Feingold election law, billed to the nation as "campaign finance reform," which is actually the worst attack on the First Amendment in the history of our nation.
Already, a draft opinion by the FEC's general counsel suggests strongly that 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.
down the page
That's because the FEC regards the Republican presidential convention, scheduled to begin Aug. 30, as a national political primary.
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."
Citizens United filed a complaint last week charging TV or radio ads for the film would violate the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law. And, indeed they would.
Also remember this was disney's excuse not to distrub Moore's movie.
http://www.nytimes.com/...
On the other hand, a senior Disney executive says the real reason is that Disney caters to families of all political stripes and that many of them might be alienated by the film. Those families, of course, would not have to watch the documentary.
Yet with the recent release of this docufiction it seems this was the true excuse.
http://edition.cnn.com/...
"The reason? According to today's edition of The New York Times, it might 'endanger' millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will 'anger' the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush."
I am no expert on this subject so if anything is wrong on my research please let me know. I just know if there is a way of learning from the past then I wish to help.