Hard as it is to imagine, the film at the center of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision last week in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commissionwas the insipidly named “Hillary: The Movie.”After all the caterwauling by people who want to continue using campaign finance laws to restrict political speech, one would have thought it was “Apocalypse Now.” President Obama predicted “a new stampede of special interest money in our politics,” while Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the decision “will change the course of our democracy.” Public Citizen, the Ralph Nader-inspired “consumer advocate” group that has for years championed campaign finance “reform,” said citizens should “shed a tear for democracy” because the decision “so imperils our democratic well-being.” The group now demands a constitutional amendment to exempt for-profit corporations from the First Amendment’s protection.

But Public Citizen’s call for constitutionally banning corporations from using their profits to pay for political speech points to the fundamental hypocrisy behind campaign finance reform: Congressional advocates decry “the influence of special interest money,” then turn around and lap it up. For example, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland both vigorously denounced the court’s decision. Pelosi said “we cannot allow special interest dollars to dictate the details of public policy,” while Van Hollen said the decision would “open the floodgates” at a time when “we need to be reducing the influence of special interest money.”