Talk:Hillary: The Movie

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Conservatism

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Vago, Mike (April 19, 2020). "Avert your eyes from this list of banned films". The A.V. Club.

Re direct to court case confusing

This article was replaced with a redirect to the court case, which is confusing. I created a stub, and this could be re-filled with the previous article information and references. Information that is specific to the court case should be left there, and this article only should summarize the film itself. Group29 (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did leave the short summary paragraph about the case in. Group29 (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a summary of what is in the movie

There do not appear to be any reviews from notable TV/Entertainment sources that I could find. Evidence suggests this movie is a critial and biased analysis of the presidential candidate designed to be shown right before the presidential primary. A summary referencing a notable resource would go a long way here. Group29 (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone add more detail to this article about the content of the film? I'm talking about the regular details that one would find on any Wikipedia article about a documentary film--who were the filmmakers, how was it financed (a studio? cable network?), how was it distributed (did it play in any theaters? what were its grosses?), plot summary, critical reaction, cultural legacy (if any), that sort of stuff. Right now more than half the article is about Citizens United, which is superfluous, because there's already an article on the case. A reader coming to this article isn't here to learn about the case--more likely than not, they've arrived here from the article about the case. The reader is here to learn about the movie. The only thing I gather from the article as it stands was that it was anti-Hillary Clinton propaganda, but if there is more to be said about the movie, it should be said. Details! 137.148.135.33 (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When was the movie released?

The article says that the federal government tried to block the release of the movie in January 2008, right before the Democrat primary. The Supreme Court didn't issue its ruling until the middle of 2010. So when did the movie actually come out? Did the government succeed in blocking the movie's release until after the election?

Presumably the goal was to block the nomination of Hillary Clinton. Obviously she lost anyway, but if the movie was blocked or its distribution limited until after the primaries, then the federal government accomplished its goals even if the case was ultimately lost.98.219.8.186 (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please update court case Summary with January 2010 decision

Someone should update the legal case summary to include the Jan 21, 2010 Supreme Court decision. I would, but I can't do it from this phone. See Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform for reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.13.151.149 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 28 April 2010

Oops, that should say...

...see Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act for the source reference for the decision date and outcome. Unfortunately, I can't even edit my erroneous link above from this phone. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.13.151.149 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 28 April 2010

Untitled

The following should be corrected to clarify a very misleading point.

"The court ruled 5-4 in 2010 that spending limits in the McCain-Feingold act were unconstitutional, allowing essentially unlimited contributions by corporations and unions to political action committees. This was one of the most controversial rulings of the term."

The issue wasn't contributions at all. There has been no change to contribution limits.

The court ruled 5-4 in 2010 that corporations had a right to use general funds for political messages in their own interests but not in coordination or cooperation with any candidate or party. The law regarding political contributions remained unchanged. This controversial and highly contested finding was based on the first amendment right to free speech, as directly explained in the finding as follows:

" By definition, an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate"

The full text located here: CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.144.228 (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]