WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The Supreme Court heard new arguments Wednesday in a dramatic case that started with a movie attacking Hillary Clinton -- but that could have far-reaching implications for U.S. elections.



The campaign finance case before the court stems from a film critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.



"If you thought you knew everything about Hillary Clinton, wait till you see the movie," said an ad last year for "Hillary: The Movie," a scorching attack on the woman then running for president.



Citizens United, the conservative group behind the film, promoted it as featuring 40 interviews -- a "cast to end all casts"-- and promised that if "you want to hear about the Clinton scandals of the past and present, you have it here! 'Hillary: The Movie' is the first and last word in what the Clintons want America to forget!"



Few Americans ever saw the ad; a federal court ruled that it broke the law on campaign advertising.



Citizens United argued that the movie was a documentary, not "electioneering communication."



As a result, the group argued, it was not subject to campaign finance rules that require disclosure of the movie's financial backers or restrictions on when the film could air. It was financed with a mix of corporate and individual donations.



Judges disagreed.



Citizens United, a Washington-based nonprofit advocacy group, took its case to the Supreme Court.



Unusually, the top court did not reach a decision on the case after it was first heard and ordered Wednesday's rare September rehearing to consider more aspects of the case. A ruling is expected in a couple of months.



The case hinges on whether corporations can be barred from pouring money into election campaigns or whether they have free-speech rights -- and the right to spend their cash to influence elections, just like individual people do.



"It's about money," said Lawrence Noble, former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission and a national expert on campaign spending. "It's about free speech, and it's about the ability of corporations to influence elections through the direct use of their ... money."



Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21 said the courts were right in the first place.



"Allowing corporations to flood our elections and use campaign expenditures to buy influence would fundamentally undermine our democracy," he said. "The little guy would have no role here, because the dominant force in politics -- the dominant force in Washington decision-making -- would become corporations."



But David Bossee of Citizens United doesn't buy that. He argued that groups of people who pool resources, ranging from labor unions to the health industry to advocacy groups like the National Rifle Association, still have the right to free speech.



"I don't believe the federal government should have the right to impede people's entry into the [political] process," he said. "And that's what I believe the Federal Election Commission is doing here: squelch our First Amendment rights."



U.S. courts have consistently ruled that spending money on elections is a form of speech.



The case has made for unusual alliances: the American Civil Liberties Union, for example, sides with Citizens United.



"For many free-speech advocates, this is maybe a case of strange bedfellows, but they agree with Citizens United," said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley.



"They say, 'If you start to say these types of movies are prohibited speech, it could sweep into things like books.' Indeed, [the first time this case was argued,] the U.S. government said, 'Yes, we could restrict books during these election periods,' " Turley said.



"That sent a chill through the free-speech community. On the other side, people are saying, 'Yeah, campaign finance [reform] is strangling the democratic process,' " he said.



"You have two worthy values and very strong values on both sides," he said on CNN's "American Morning."
What movie broke the laws? what did federal court rule? what was documentary? Who does the film attack? What kind of laws did the movie break? When is the Supreme Court expected to rule? when is supreme court expected to rule?
"Hillary: The Movie," it broke the law on campaign advertising. "Hillary: The Movie," Hillary Clinton, on campaign advertising. couple of months. in a couple of months.
question: What movie broke the laws?, answer: "Hillary: The Movie," | question: what did federal court rule?, answer: it broke the law on campaign advertising. | question: what was documentary?, answer: "Hillary: The Movie," | question: Who does the film attack?, answer: Hillary Clinton, | question: What kind of laws did the movie break?, answer: on campaign advertising. | question: When is the Supreme Court expected to rule?, answer: couple of months. | question: when is supreme court expected to rule?, answer: in a couple of months.