You just lost the game

That's actually a username on some site I go to. I love that name. It's what came to mind when I was reading about Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (Docket No. 08-205). (Background in non-legalese here and here.)

The producers of "Hillary, the Movie" wanted to show their, uh, documentary on television instead of movie theaters. "Well, ok", said the FEC. "But it's not a documentary, it's a hit piece, so you'll have to disclose the people who financed and contributed money to this."

"Aw hell no!" And so the fighting started. And more than a year later, here we are.

See, there was nothing standing in the way of showing this piece, except having to disclose who funded it, and not being able to show it within 30 days of an election, and a few other rules from our almost-got-it-right campaign finance reform McCain Feingold laws.

But the producers wanted to be counted as "news" and "documentary" people, and not have to embarass whoever was really behind them. That's a hell of a tell.

Yes, yes, anonymity is the last defense against tyrrany. There was nothing stopping the producers from running the film in more theaters. Word of mouth, echo-chamber mailing lists and blogs would have gotten a sufficient audience for it...but that was the problem. How to get it to the eyeballs of people who *gasp* didn't agree with them?

Well, since the idea of simply sending a CD to every house in a city hadn't been thought of yet, I guess this was the route to go: claim you've made a documentary and try to show it as news, and then complain about "bias" and "freeeeedom!" when you're told "no". Even the classic R bugaboo Michael Moore doesn't try this nonsense.

Any publicity is good publicity, but I'm not buying it, even if it is listed by Amazon as a documentary.