From Wikipedia: The case arose after Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, sought to air and advertise a film critical of Democratic presiden

From Wikipedia: The case arose after Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, sought to air and advertise a film critical of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary elections. They wanted to broadcast a film. Not an advertisement. Not a campaign ad. A film. This is what gets lost in most common discourse about the Citizens United case. Had the court ruled otherwise in the Citizens United case, it would have given the Federal Government precedent to ban films for political reasons. The other reply by Dharmab is also very useful. The effects of ruling another way on the Citizens United would have impacted not only the medium of film, but also the publication of books, and all other media. Imagine not being able to publish a book critical of a candidate before an election. Yet that would have been the result of ruling otherwise. It's probably worth actually watching the oral arguments of the case: https://www.c-span.org/video/?288797-1/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission-oral-argument https://www.c-span.org/video/?288797-1/citizens-united-v-fed...