US:Television adverts promoting films are not the normal business of politics or the courts, but they are this month because conservative activists are seeking a wide audience for Hillary: The Movie.
David Bossie, who made a name for himself as a relentless investigator of the Clintons during the 1990s, has released a 90-minute documentary on the New York senator.
His targets include not just her but the campaign-funding regulatory law known as McCain-Feingold, one of the legislative accomplishments of another presidential candidate, John McCain.
Mr Bossie's group is challenging the law's limits on its efforts to promote the film and has appealed to the US supreme court. The litigation underscores the difficulty of drawing lines when money, politics and free-speech principles clash.
Hillary: The Movieincludes a series of interviews with Clinton critics, including Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich and Dick Morris. "If you want to hear about the Clinton scandals of the past and present, you have it here!," Citizens United, Mr Bossie's group, says on its website.
The group, a non-profit corporation, is free to promote its film and sell DVDs on its website. But one provision of McCain-Feingold makes it illegal to use corporate or union money for "any broadcast, cable or satellite communication" if it "refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office" within 30 days of a primary election or a convention or within 60 days of a general election.
That "blackout period" as it is known, has covered California and much of the nation for the last month with the primary elections pending. Mr McCain and other sponsors of the Bill wanted to stop the slew of corporate-funded broadcast ads on the eve of an election.
The McCain-Feingold Act, which went into effect in 2002, was written broadly to bar such election-eve adverts. It covered non-profit corporations as well as money-making companies. And it was triggered by the mere mention of the candidate's name.
That posed an obvious problem for Mr Bossie and his group: "How can you advertise this movie without mentioning the name 'Hillary'?" asked James Bopp, a free speech lawyer representing Citizens United.
In December the group said it wanted to run 30-second TV adverts calling attention to the film and went to court seeking an order that would shield it from the law. Mr Bopp argued that "core political speech" deserved full free-speech protection under the First Amendment.
But his chances may have been dimmed when he won a partial victory on January 15th. A three-judge panel ruled that the film itself is akin to a campaign ad and cannot be broadcast on television. It tells "the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office . . . and that viewers should vote against her," they said.
However, they said that brief adverts for the film could be broadcast because "they proposed a commercial transaction - buy the DVD of the movie". But in a third conclusion, the judges said the adverts for the film are still subject to the law, and Citizens United, therefore, must disclose who donated money to support the film.
The group has refused to accept that requirement, and Mr Bopp has now asked the supreme court to intervene and to strike down the disclosure rules for political adverts.
"If you must disclose your contributors, you are subjecting them to harassment and intimidation," he said. "It also chills their willingness to give money."
For his part, Mr Bossie said, he was inspired by Michael Moore, a left-leaning film-maker whose documentaries have targeted President Bush, among others. "I saw the impact Moore was having. I realised the long-form documentary could be a powerful tool to deliver a political message," he said.
In the meantime, Mr Bossie and his group will be able to advertise their film only in states that have already voted.