The year is 2008 and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is running for president. The year prior, a conservative group named Citizens United produced a documentary film that criticized Hillary and aimed at derailing her presidential aspirations. They had planned to publicly broadcast the film in the weeks leading up to the primaries but were blocked when a lower court decided the film violated an existing legal provision. This provision forbade corporations, unions, and special interest groups from using money from their general treasuries for "any broadcast, cable or satellite communications" that refer to a candidate running for office during election season (defined in the bounds of 30 days from a primary or 60 days from a general election).…show more content… Even though nonprofits may raise political money, they are able to maintain their status as nonprofits as long as the majority of their work is focused in areas other than political funding. In a way, the 2010 decision made a nonprofit’s job easier. While laws still limit any one corporation or individual from donating more than $2,500 directly to a candidate, the Citizens ruling allowed corporations to spend money from their general treasury on donations to organizations that indirectly support a candidate through advertising. In theory and in practice that has become synonymous with an unlimited amount, especially when billionaires and multi-billion dollar corporations who want some pull in an election decide to get involved. Many of these corporations and individuals who spend significant amounts donate to nonprofits because one distinguishing feature of a nonprofit. This feature, and what separates its fundraising from a PAC, is that it is not legally required to document donations or donors. That means that, often, who donated and how much goes unknown. The money that flows into a nonprofit, is usually donated to a PAC, or political action