Hillary the Movie is a comic failure on so many levels. The movie itself is almost hilariously incompetent at smearing Hillary Clinton with a variety of crackpot theories. The goal of the well-funded movie (to defeat an almost-certain Clinton candidacy as the Democratic nominee) turned out to be a very funny miscalculation when Barack Obama emerged as the winner (the right-wing filmmaker, David Bossie of Citizens United, had to rapidly produce another, even less competent movie, called "Hype: The Obama Effect").
But Hillary the Movie may play a critical role in American Constitutional history when it is re-argued today before the US Supreme Court.
In a rare move at the end of the Supreme Court's June term, the justices ordered new arguments in the case rather than issuing a decision. Many experts believe that the re-argument may portend a Court willing to overturn many of the limits on campaign finance. The ACLU has come down on the side of prohibiting any limits on political speech. Floyd Abrams called limits on making such a movie a "constitutional desecration." Other progressive groups fear that a ruling by the Supreme Court may open up the floodgates to partisan groups using their money to influence elections with their own "documentaries" and advertising for them.
Third-party spending, such as Hillary the Movie, cannot be stopped without endangering freedom of political speech. Once you begin to say that "Hillary the Movie" cannot be advertised or shown on TV, there is a perilous and slippery slope down to a total ban. After all, if "Hillary the Movie" can be promoted online and shown in theaters and on DVD, it still amounts to a use of money on behalf or against a particular candidate. The exemption for "news media" cannot be sustained in a new internet environment where all of us can become part of the media by posting videos on YouTube and blogs online.
I take the "Hillary the Movie" case very personally. I wrote a book about Barack Obama that was published during the 2008 campaign. Part of my goal was to support Obama's candidacy and convince people to vote for Obama. Although I didn't give any money to Obama, arguably the resources provided by my publisher and myself far exceeding any campaign finance limits. I hope that I don't share the sheer stupidity and propensity for deceit found in "Hillary the Movie." But who would I trust to make the distinction, to say that my book is journalism and "Hillary the Movie" is pure politics? During the oral arguments this spring, the government's lawyer defended the campaign finance law by admitting that it said the government could restrict a book criticizing a candidate.
It's a troubling idea for any book lover, and it would be arrogant not to recognize the dangers of applying the concept to a movie. In 2004, conservatives sought to limit Michael Moore from promoting his movie Fahrenheit 9-11 on television and through personal appearances on college campuses. It was wrong to limit a leftist's speech, and it's equally wrong to limit a conservative's speech.
The danger posed by Hillary the Movie is small. The republic will not fall because partisans, even well-funded partisans, choose to express their views. In an age of Fox News Channel, we already have a nation where entire news organizations are turned over to the service of one party against another.
Here is a case where the insights of the Founders can be educational. The early years of the United States were filled with the 18th Century equivalent of Hillary the Movie. Newspapers and pamphlets were viciously partisan and dishonest. Politicians may have regretted ever passing that First Amendment with its protections for freedom of the press. However, America prospered in spite of (and perhaps because of) this open environment for free speech.
The danger of big money in politics is real, and campaign finance reform alone cannot solve it. Hillary the Movie may lead the Supreme Court to overturn the ban on corporate and union funding of political advocacy. But we've seen how money funneled to right-wing think tanks and corporate media can influence our politics far more effectively.
Our current system is a failure. What should campaign finance reform look like? The 2008 campaign provides a valuable lesson. Barack Obama broke all records for fundraising. During the general election, Obama rejected public financing, preferring to continue his successful strategy of asking the American people to give money online. John McCain took public funding, which should have prevented him from doing any additional fundraising. But instead, McCain was aggressively raising money by helping the Republican Party seek funding for ads used in his campaign. Because the donation limits are much higher for the parties, McCain was seeking bigger sums of money from a much smaller group of donors than Obama. So the campaign finance system, subsidized by the public, actually encouraged corruption in 2008.
We need a new system for cleaning up campaigns. The first part should be an end to restrictions on movies such as "Hillary the Movie" and spending by outside groups. The second part should be limits on donations to candidates and parties and limits on coordination of state-based party donations. The third part should be a system of public matching funds for all candidates. By providing $50 in matching funds for every donation, we could have a system that rewards candidates for gaining support from the public rather than the wealthiest individuals.
With full disclosure and matching funds in all elections, we could help transform the political landscape. But ultimately, we need to participate actively in political debates in order to win them. Complaining about an unfair system that favors corporate interests and right-wing media won't change anything, and hoping that government regulation will favor a progressive point of view rather than suppressing it is a dangerous gamble.
The danger to our democracy doesn't come from documentaries or even corporate money, but from the failure to build a progressive movement that can persuade the public to embrace liberal policies and defeat the corporate interests trying to stop reforms.
Crossposted at DailyKos.
