This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Friday, October 21st, 2016.

I'm Caleb Brown. The Citizens United case made it easier for corporations and unions to engage in direct

political advocacy. So did the outcome of that case pave the way for Michael Moore's

new film about Donald Trump? Trevor Burris, a research fellow at the Cato Institute, comments.

When Citizens United, the case came before the U.S. Supreme Court, how important was the method of distribution of the film?

It was the biggest question originally.

Citizens United was argued twice in front of the Supreme Court.

And the first time it came up, there were,

I won't get into the four complex questions,

but sort of the biggest question

that the court was asked to decide

if it's whether or not pay-per-view

distribution of a movie gave them an exemption, just a little exemption for

them from the general prohibition on corporate funding of campaign ads.

They made this Hillary the movie, but they were distributing it via pay-per-view.

And this sort of changes the FEC's mandate.

The FEC is, you can kind of think of them as a huge judge blocking certain

things from seeing the American jury from seeing it and the way that the judge

says oh the jury can't see that and leave the

courtroom the efficacy's job is to screen things beforehand and say who can say

who can say this and who can't say this or what they have to say when they say

this evidence that is not admissible exactly who can't say this or what they have to say when they say this.

...