Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

Showing tonight, at Supreme Court Cinemas- "Hillary- The Movie." Running time…

… 90 very politically charged minutes.

Buried in the fracas of the Primary Wars last year was the release of a movie about Senator Clinton, financed by a group of neo-conservatives hell bent on doing whatever they could to keep Senator Clinton from winning the Democratic primary, and out of the White House. They were eventually prevented from releasing it, due to campaign financial restrictions- ie, under McCain/Feingold, it was decreed the movie was essentially a political ad, rather than a “documentary”, as the makers claimed.

And now, the case faces the Supreme Court. Of course, the financing group, “Citizens United”, disagrees their film should be considered under McCain/Feingold. According to the AP:

The group says there is nothing in the movie urging people to vote against Clinton. The group says the film is more of a documentary comparable to critical television news programs such as “Frontline,” “Nova” and “60 Minutes.”

This, of course, is complete and total BS- “Citizens United”, if anyone remembers, is a group that released screed after screed about Fahrenheit 9/11 ads. But, heck, that was political grandstanding, taking only a few things out of context for cinematic effect. Hillary: The Movie is completely different. Right? Gee, I wonder how they’d feel if Obama: The Motion Picture was released in 2012?

I don’t know, though, I’m a little conflicted on this. This isn’t as clear cut a case on free speech as they want to make it out to be- but should it be judged under McCain/Feingold? Maybe not; but there needs to be something out there to prevent people, no matter the political affiliation, from partaking in such unmitigated political grandstanding- especially with no accountability. Either way, it’ll be interesting to see what the Supreme Court rules on this.


  1. is more proof of a bunch of fracking goons that have no interest in the betterment of their country.  the acronym in their name should tell anyone enough about their intentions.  

    if the supreme court rules in favour – and i think they probably should – its important for us all especially the bloggers to look at every miniscule detail and take them to task on any untruths – of which i am certain there are many.

  2. anna shane

    simply free speech, then delaying it until after the election still maintains that right.  Of course if the whole point was to beat Hillary, then they should quack and take it to the top.  Wonder which method they selected to exercise their free speaking?  

  3. rfahey22

    It sounds as if the film was infomercial-like in that the group was willing to pay for cable companies to put it on their on-demand services.  I guess I would be in favor of regulating it under McCain/Feingold.  Of course, you almost have to wonder if the film would have any effect whatsoever – what kind of person is open to voting for a candidate but would still watch a 60- or 90-minute attack ad about that candidate to inform the person’s views?  It seems like these types of films just sing to the choir.  

Comments are closed.