The movie's only questionable note is the egocentric turn at the end when D'Souza shows himself in handcuffs and notes his own prosecution for making $20,000 in straw donations to a U.S. Senate race in New York. D'Souza has a point about selective prosecution under Obama, but it loses its punch when the accuser has admitted his guilt.Admitting guilt was IMHO (and IANAL) a mistake. He should be challenging the legitimacy of the law - and of the FEC in general. “Campaign Finance Reform” presumes that journalists have rights superior to those of (other) citizens. They do not legitimately have any such right; the First Amendment does not create a class of people who have presses. Rather, it establishes the principle that you or I have the right to pony up our own money and buy - and use a press. Well, if I can buy a printing press, I certainly have a strong case for having the right to rent one.And it is no excuse to say that “press” does not include radio and TV (and movies). The press was merely the mainstream technology for using money to promote people’s opinions at the time of the ratification of the First Amendment - and the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to " promote the progress of science and useful arts.” Thus, the Constitution as ratified is most clearly understood as codifying a right to freedom of expression in any technology/medium which happens to exist at a given time. It follows that there is no legitimate, constitutional law against D’Souza’s $20,000 contribution - and D’Souza should have pleaded "Not Guilty."