Members of the advocacy group Citizens United felt that the film “Hillary: The Movie” could possibly change the course of American politics. No one could have predicted, however, that it would eventually result in a Supreme Court case that would overturn parts of McConnell v. FEC and the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, which takes its name after the Federal Election Commission – an agency that oversees U.S. campaign finance laws. The film, which was critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, had a marginal affect on the nomination of Barack Obama.

Although the film was slated to air in the days prior to the Democratic primaries, few actually saw the film due to a provision in McCain-Feingold that prevented corporations from advertising for or against a candidate on television 60 days before a primary. Some have stated that the decision allows corporations to make unlimited contributions to candidates. This is false; the decision did not affect the ban on corporate financing of campaigns, it only applied to advertising. Citizens United v. FEC deemed McCain-Feingold’s restriction of corporate advertising of candidates during a campaign season as a violation of the first amendment. However, it maintained the provision of McCain-Feingold requiring a disclaimer and identification of the advertisement’s sponsor.

Is it really the government’s responsibility to restrict what its citizens can or cannot see on television? Did McCain-Feingold fear that people would be involuntarily convinced to vote in a certain way even though it is a voluntary decision to watch a program? Perhaps this is just another instance where the government assuming its citizens cannot think for themselves.

Even more surprising than the decision was the response of President Obama. His condemnation of the Supreme Court during the State of the Union address was both factually inaccurate and disrespectful. According to fact checkers, president Obama’s claim that “The Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign companies, to spend without limit in our elections” was completely false. Once again, Obama tried to use misinformation to score cheap political points and to misguide the American people when the Constitution got in the way of his agenda.