Steve Simpson of the Institute for Justice sends along this reply to my earlier characterization of the IJ press release as “hyperbolic:”

Thanks for posting our press release. I must take issue with your description of it as “hyperbolic,” though. As you know, the concern over including books within the bans on corporate-funded express advocacy came from several Justices on the Supreme Court at the first oral argument in Citizens United. Our release simply gives specific examples of the types of books that could easily come within such bans because they do exactly what Hillary: The Movie does–they support or attack candidates based on their character and fitness for office. Indeed, Fred Wertheimer could not bring himself to take book banning off the table in the article Adam Liptak wrote for the New York Times last weekend (here’ s the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/us/30scotus.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=citizens%20united&st=cse&scp=1).
If our release is “hyperbolic” then so is the concern about book banning expressed by several Justices on the Court and the question Adam Liptak put to Fred Wertheimer.
More broadly, the course of campaign finance law over the last three decades makes clear that concerns about including books within bans on corporate-funded express advocacy (or electioneering communications) are not hyperbolic at all. Indeed, just a few years ago, claims that films might be included within the bans could have been described as “hyperbolic,” yet look at where we are today. Before that, concerns that Congress might one day ban corporate-funded ads that mention candidates near elections would have been considered “hyberbolic.” The Court struck down limits on independent expenditures in Buckley, and yet just a few years ago, Congress considered restrictions on 527s that engage in issue advocacy. And the FEC has taken the position in the SpeechNow.org case that independent expenditures cause corruption and amount to indirect contributions to candidates. It has even argued that SpeechNow.org, an unincorporated association, is no different from a for-profit corporation under Austin. (I’d be happy to forward you the briefs in which they make that case). So even individual independent expenditures could be on the chopping block if the government prevails in CU.
At bottom, the question still stands: if Hillary: The Movie can be included in bans on corporate funded express advocacy (or electioneering communications) then what constitutional principle would prevent the books on our list from being included?