Nexus: Chapman's Journal of Law and Public Policy

We have been discussing Citizens United since the September. The main focus has consistently been on this midterm election and the effects the decision of the Supreme Court in Citizens United will have on future elections. Corporations now allowed under the Constitution to fund the political campaigns of its favored candidates. After reading through some of the blog postings, I started to think about how this case came before the Supreme Court in the first place and what started the entire controversy and I recalled that it had begun because of Hillary: The Movie. My curiosity caused me to find out more about the movie and maybe even take a sneak peak at it myself.

During the 2008 election, Citizens United produced a film that they intended to make available on HBO on-demand. The focus of the film was to criticize candidate Hillary Clinton. Although nonprofit, Citizens United is set-up as an organization and they therefore were not allowed the same 1st Amendment rights as individuals under the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law.

After reading about and viewing Hillary: The Movie, I can now truly understand the controversy. A trailer for the film even has a clip of President Obama stating, “Senator Clinton is claiming the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency as her own, except for the stuff that didn’t work out, in which case she has nothing to do with it.” At one point, Hillary is compared to Richard Nixon and it is said that she is even worse. There are debate scenes between Clinton and other nominees where she is being attacked and making circular comments.

The actual film begins with a ten-minute introduction in which there are numerous people making every possible crude remark you can imagine about Hillary Clinton and all the different reasons she is not qualified to hold public office. I would have to say this was my least favorite part of the film, primarily because the individuals speaking were not identified with their names and positions held. The statements were merely opinions, which although interesting, are not conclusive in my opinion. The rest of the film is substantiated with facts, different newspaper articles, and dates of specific events. The individuals offering input and discussing the facts are people that would have had first-hand knowledge and that could offer eyewitness testimony. For example, there are national security professionals who were present at the time of the events that took place.

Hillary: The Movie discusses Hillary’s run for senate along with the various positions Hillary has taken on different issues during her campaign. It does seem as if she is constantly contradicting herself and she often has a difficult time being straightforward when answering questions. I found this interesting primarily because we see actual clips and statements from Clinton. Therefore, it was the most believable aspect.

“Never underestimate her chance of winning,” states the film after calling her the “closest thing we have to a European socialist.” The movie also goes further saying that if Hillary were a republican, she would never be elected but democrats are often given leniency.

Of course, what would a Clinton movie be without discussion of the President’s scandalous love affairs. Citizens United interviews Dick Morris, a former Clinton advisor, who states that he had to leave the administration after he found out Hillary was using private detectives to investigate the various women linked to her husband. He goes on to say that she was not looking to reprimand the President or to discover evidence and leave him, but rather to silence the women so that he would have a better chance ad getting re-elected. Litigator Ann Coulter questions what that says about Hillary Clinton. She is willing to put up with her husbands scandalous affairs and philandering with “anything with a skirt, all for the power.” Coulter states that Hillary always has an agenda and will do anything to get exactly what she wants, including putting up with President Clinton’s numerous women.

Perhaps, the most interesting and ironic part of the film comes with discussion of the Clintons involvement in illegal fundraising violations. This part of the film highlights the hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton and her involvement in what may be the biggest campaign finance fraud in history. Peter F. Paul, former lawyer and entertainment guru, himself was interviewed for the movie. He talks about an offer he made to Hillary to donate and participate in her campaign, in exchange for allowing Paul to hire President Clinton after his term as a rainmaker for Stan Lee Media. Paul has recorded conversations with Hillary, which seem to suggest that Hillary consented to the bargain and actively participated in illegal campaign contributions. Paul raised finds and offered much of his own money to one of the largest fundraisers in history, which included a concert, dinner, and a reception. The concert has performances by Cher, Diana Ross, Patty Label, and Tina Turner among others. There were over one hundred celebrities participating and over 25,000 invitations sent out.

After the media caught wind of “possible campaign violations,” they contacted Clinton who stated she knew nothing about any violations of the sort and that she didn’t even really know Paul. Paul says that she told him that if he wished to keep their agreement, he should go along with her lies. She accepted further funds from him as well. The reason I found this to be so interesting is because it is precisely the type of activity that the Supreme Court ruled on in the case this movie brought about, Citizens United. Whether or not corporations could fund political campaigns. The movie seems to suggest Hillary was partaking in actions of the sort long before the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Citizens United has managed to heap every possible image and scene in which Clinton looks unfavorable into one movie. It is inevitable that Clinton is going to look bad. The film reminded me of a Michael Moore Movie. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, and whether you believe the attacks on Clinton or agree with the film’s view of her, the movie is at the very least entertaining. No matter your personal opinion of the Clintons, it cannot be argued that the family has been plagued by controversy. That amount of scandal is bound to keep you interested. It is definitely a recommended movie and I wouldn’t hesitate to sit down and watch it again, purely as entertainmen