The U.S. Supreme Court today considers just how far a landmark campaign reform law goes when it comes to limiting political speech in the days before an election.

At issue is a political video that was made about then Sen. Hillary Clinton titled, "Hillary: The Movie."

A group named Citizens United had planned to air the movie via video-on-demand cable TV services, which was when the Federal Election Commission objected.

Citizens United's argument is that the movie was not a campaign message and should not be governed by laws that allow regulation of campaign messages airing before a primary or general election (within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election.)

Lower courts have ruled against the group, saying the movie was a political message directed against a specific candidate, and thus required that Citizens United reveal the names of its financial supporters.

Citizens United leader David Bossie - a well known anti-Clinton conservative activist says the movie is not a political ad, but rather a documentary.

The courts have already cut a few holes in what's known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform laws, and this gives the Judicial Branch another chance to reign in that law.

Now you might ask, why not just name the people who gave money?

Well, Citizens United says "issue-oriented television ads are protected by the First Amendment and should not be subject to disclosure requirements under McCain-Feingold campaign finance law," according to material on the group's website.

Citizens United said 25 backers of the movie gave the group over $1,000.  One would assume they weren't supporters of now Secretary of State Clinton, eh?

Arguments come today, with a decision likely in June.