It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dems on FEC target conservatives, vote to punish maker of anti-Obama movie

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Looks like some Democrats on the Federal Election Commission tried to "enforce" a rule that would make a movie maker report who helped finance a politically charged movie.

The FEC has 3 Democrats that moved to act on a complaint.

But the 3 Republicans on the FEC voted not to, forcing a 3-3 tie.

The the FEC voted 6-0 to close the file and the movie maker didn't have to report anything.

This shows a definite pattern of nit-picky micro-managing attempts by Democrats to silence anything Republican.

Dems on FEC target conservatives, vote to punish maker of anti-Obama movie


The three Democrats on the Federal Election Commission, in their latest and boldest move to regulate conservative media, voted in unison to punish a movie maker critical of President Obama after he distributed for free his latest work, Dreams of My Real Father: A Story of Reds and Deception.

Filmmaker Joel Gilbert, owner of Highway 61 films, has produced several independent politically-themed movies and sent Dreams out to millions of voters in key swing states prior to the 2012 election.

......... Lucky for Gilbert, the three Republicans on the FEC also united to vote to give him the exemption. The tie vote blocked any action, and was followed by a unanimous 6-0 vote to close the file. Had he lost, Gilbert would have been required to report who helped fund the anti-Obama movie.


Freedom of the Press is Alive !!







posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
This film probably caused another terrorist attack.
edit on 7-4-2016 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   
So D'Souza wasn't enough for them.

Rinse, and Repeat.

Seriously for eight years the current administration used it's agencies to target it's critics.

From Journalists to filmmakers, to the anyone that gave money to conservatives'. The IRS.

Yeah people the gestapo is alive and well,

Zeig heil her left.
edit on 7-4-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
So D'Souza wasn't enough for them.

Rinse, and Repeat.

Seriously for eight years the current administration used it's agencies to target it's critics.

From Journalists to filmmakers, to the anyone that gave money to conservatives'. The IRS.

Yeah people the gestapo is alive and well,

Zeig heil her left.


Maybe it is because I was younger and less informed for the others, but this administration seemed to be the least transparent and most authoritarian of any before it.

Am I wrong?

Or is it as it seems to me?



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
This started back in 2004 with Moore's anti Bush Fahrenheit 9/11. Because in 2002 part of the election law was changed that prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury to fund "electioneering communications" (broadcast advertisements mentioning a candidate) within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.

And it has pretty much gone back and forth since. If it is anti DNC movie the GOP member vote it is fine and the DNC that it is not and vice versa. Some of them end up in the courts. Thanks to that law change this is the new normal.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

Seems we inch closer and closer to suppression of speech and opinion. Scary stuff for sure.

I see things like this and the now popular denial of free speech at our universities and I can't help but be concerned.

This insane feud being fueled by partisan nonsense is out of control it seems to me. People are so easily drawn into the hate and led around by their noses by Party leaders, they will sit silently by while applauding actions to limit speech and opinion.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Freedom of the press is alive? This was journalism or simply an opinion piece?

Hm. Could some GOP PAC or group want something to rally the base and stir the political pot that they can then spread for "free?" Meaning folks don't have to pay to see it, though the producer seems to have been paid already. Lol! It's called an extended
Political attack ad.

At least it seems that way from the outside.

So the vote against was really to block transparency over jingoistic propaganda. Gotcha.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: MrSpad

Seems we inch closer and closer to suppression of speech and opinion. Scary stuff for sure.

I see things like this and the now popular denial of free speech at our universities and I can't help but be concerned.

This insane feud being fueled by partisan nonsense is out of control it seems to me. People are so easily drawn into the hate and led around by their noses by Party leaders, they will sit silently by while applauding actions to limit speech and opinion.


Well on the plus side the courts strike down anything that goes over the line. This however is nothing new. Our history has some real problems in the free speech area that we do not have today. Sedition laws, McCarthyism, controlled White House press Corps come to mind. While not perfect at least we keep heading in the right direction.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

And yes, I am aware of left leaning Moore.
Political hit pieces come in multiple flavors.

but why the secrecy? Why does the person or group that funded this want to remain in the shadows? How is wanting to understand that an insult to the first amendment?
ETA - I'm genuinely curious about that. Not implying an answer one way or the other. Anyone?
edit on 7-4-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: AboveBoard

And yes, I am aware of left leaning Moore.
Political hit pieces come in multiple flavors.

but why the secrecy? Why does the person or group that funded this want to remain in the shadows? How is wanting to understand that an insult to the first amendment?
ETA - I'm genuinely curious about that. Not implying an answer one way or the other. Anyone?


See theres this little thing called anonynimity. Its used for various reasons such as avoiding undue harrassment and or ridicule or threats of death and violence. As long as their speech is NOT treasonous its covered by 1st amendment protection. No one should b e forced to admit to anything.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

But is this really protected in this circumstance?


In the case the conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA".[4] Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][5] The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications".[4] The majority decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[6] The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[7]
(my bold)

If this is an attempt by a political group to provide "electioneering communications" during the Primary Season, then perhaps they are breaking the law by NOT providing public disclosure of their sponsorship. The only way to know this is to know who is behind the funding. It's a bit of a gray area.

If it were paid for by an individual, then this is also not okay by the law, IF it is electioneering. This is a legal matter. I can't say one way or the other, and I haven't seen the movie.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

The Group is made up of individuals and if they decide as a group to stay anonymous then its perfectly legal to do so. Also a Documentary is not a advertisement. Unless they directly say we want you to vote against this canidate or canidates its NOT Electioneering.

Also This is WAY before 30 days before the Presidential election so there goes THAT out th ewindow.
edit on 16000000pppm by yuppa because: added value



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: AboveBoard

The Group is made up of individuals and if they decide as a group to stay anonymous then its perfectly legal to do so. Also a Documentary is not a advertisement. Unless they directly say we want you to vote against this canidate or canidates its NOT Electioneering.

Also This is WAY before 30 days before the Presidential election so there goes THAT out th ewindow.


It is 30 days before the primaries and 60 days before the election.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

However, if the Group is a Super PAC or other such entity, then it is illegal not to reveal the funding.

I'm not saying it is, but without the FEC being told, even privately, who funded the project, then the FEC is being prevented from doing their job.

If it was an anti-republican movie secretly funded by a Hillary Super PAC that did not disclose their identity to make the movie seem more objective and less like a politically motivated advertisement, the FEC would be justified in investigating, no?

In other words, this was hardly a witch hunt, or without legal grounding.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Sargeras

You are not wrong.

And I dread to see the stuff that comes out years from now about what happened behind the scenes that we don't already know about.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
So Joel Gilbert:


a conspiracy theorist who made this movie:



MVD Visual announces the release of a new film from Highway 61 Entertainment - ELVIS FOUND ALIVE - for North American distribution on DVD on January 24, 2012. Also a new CD 'Elvis Found Alive' will be released digitally on December 6, and on CD January 10. Film description below:

ELVIS has been FOUND, ALIVE! After visiting Graceland, Director Joel Gilbert made a Freedom of Information Act request for US government files on Elvis Presley. Incredibly, documents arrived from the FBI revealing an address for Federal Agent "Jon Burrows," Elvis' 1970's alias, in Simi Valley, California. After a brief confrontation, Elvis agreed to chronicle the secret history of his life and "death" in an exclusive interview.

In Elvis Found Alive, Elvis reflects on his early life and career, and describes his admiration for his look-alike, comic book hero Captain Marvel Jr. He explains that social unrest in the late 1960's and terrorism by the Weather Underground drove him to ask President Nixon to make him a Federal Agent. "If I could help save America, maybe it was my true destiny that God had prepared me for."
movementreellife.blogspot.com...


also made a 'movie' about Obama, which is basically a compilation of YT videos, a few personal interviews and information already surfing around the internet, is the object of targeting by the FEC?

I'm at a loss for words......



This is laughable. What a waste of time and money.
edit on 8-4-2016 by StoutBroux because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
11

log in

join