Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 486.0

Cite as: 558 U. S. 310 (2010) 

325 

Opinion of the Court 

the  functional  equivalent  of  express  advocacy  only  if  [it]  is 
susceptible  of  no  reasonable  interpretation  other  than  as  an 
appeal  to  vote  for  or  against  a  speciﬁc  candidate.”  Id.,  at 
469–470. 

Under this test, Hillary is equivalent to express advocacy. 
The movie, in essence, is a feature-length negative advertise­
ment that urges viewers to vote against Senator Clinton for 
President.  In  light  of  historical  footage,  interviews  with 
persons  critical  of  her,  and  voiceover  narration,  the  ﬁlm 
would  be  understood  by  most  viewers  as  an  extended  criti­
cism  of  Senator  Clinton’s  character  and  her  ﬁtness  for  the 
ofﬁce  of  the  Presidency.  The  narrative  may  contain  more 
suggestions  and  arguments  than  facts,  but  there  is  little 
doubt  that  the  thesis  of  the  ﬁlm  is  that  she  is  unﬁt  for  the 
Presidency.  The movie concentrates on alleged wrongdoing 
during  the  Clinton  administration,  Senator  Clinton’s  qualiﬁ­
cations  and  ﬁtness  for  ofﬁce,  and  policies  the  commentators 
predict she would pursue if elected President.  It calls Sena­
tor Clinton “Machiavellian,” App. 64a, and asks whether she 
is  “the  most  qualiﬁed  to  hit  the  ground  running  if  elected 
President,”  id.,  at  88a.  The  narrator  reminds  viewers  that 
“Americans  have  never  been  keen  on  dynasties”  and  that 
“a  vote  for  Hillary  is  a  vote  to  continue  20  years  of  a  Bush 
or a Clinton in the White House,” id., at 143a–144a. 

Citizens  United  argues  that  Hillary  is  just  “a  documen­
tary ﬁlm that examines certain historical events.”  Brief for 
Appellant 35.  We disagree.  The movie’s consistent empha­
sis  is  on  the  relevance  of  these  events  to  Senator  Clinton’s 
candidacy  for  President.  The  narrator  begins  by  asking 
“could  [Senator  Clinton]  become  the  ﬁrst  female  President 
in  the  history  of  the  United  States?”  App.  35a.  And  the 
narrator  reiterates  the  movie’s  message  in  his  closing  line: 
“Finally, before America decides on our next president, vot­
ers  should  need  no  reminders  of  .  .  .  what’s  at  stake—the 
well being and prosperity of our nation.”  Id., at 144a–145a.