I watched this documentary based on the recommendation of a national publication, and found it well-done, absorbing, and critically important to democratic politics. True, it's not like, say, a nature documentary with exciting visual scenes, but is essentially a series of revealing interviews with lawyers and politicians, and a few journalists. The film effectively uses local politics in Montana to depict the erosion of democracy from unrestrained campaign finance, particularly from front groups who serve to hide the identity of national advocacy groups who are actually providing the cash, the "dark money" in the title. Montana has one of the more strict campaign finance laws, stemming as we learn from the days of the "Copper Kings" when Anaconda and other copper mining firms essentially purchased state legislators and newspapers, and we see in this film how state politicians, both Democrats and (moderate) Republicans, try to preserve this modest protection from the dreadful effects of the Citizens United court case which has unleashed torrents of money in our elections whose sources needn't be identified. The film ends with the conviction of a state legislator who has received large amounts of campaign funds and advice from out-of-state groups that, in a hidden manner, front for "right-to-work" (i.e., anti-labor union) advocacy groups.
Some politically conservative national observers who I respect claim the Citizens United case removed restraints on "free speech" in the political arena imposed on corporations and trade groups (and labor unions), allowing them to use as much of their resources as they desire to influence (i.e., engage in "free speech") elections and legislation. I firmly believe that too much money in politics, especially from hidden sources, is anti-democratic and makes political decision-making beholden to the "donor class." The Koch brothers, for example, have many avenues for advocacy (free speech); their Americans for Prosperity distributes all kinds of information around the U.S. and they acquired the Cato Institute, an influential Washington think tank. Why let them, conceivably, purchase legislators through unlimited campaign donations? Finally, as this film implicitly shows, campaign finance money has a greater impact on state and local elections since there's greater name recognition for candidates in U.S. Senate and national elections.
Some politically conservative national observers who I respect claim the Citizens United case removed restraints on "free speech" in the political arena imposed on corporations and trade groups (and labor unions), allowing them to use as much of their resources as they desire to influence (i.e., engage in "free speech") elections and legislation. I firmly believe that too much money in politics, especially from hidden sources, is anti-democratic and makes political decision-making beholden to the "donor class." The Koch brothers, for example, have many avenues for advocacy (free speech); their Americans for Prosperity distributes all kinds of information around the U.S. and they acquired the Cato Institute, an influential Washington think tank. Why let them, conceivably, purchase legislators through unlimited campaign donations? Finally, as this film implicitly shows, campaign finance money has a greater impact on state and local elections since there's greater name recognition for candidates in U.S. Senate and national elections.