Have you heard? Michael Moore’s spent the last few days breathlessly trumpeting his newest film, “Michael Moore in TrumpLand”:

More from NBC News:

Despite its title, the film itself is less about Trump (whom Moore has dismissed in the past as a “performance artist”) and more about the director’s evolving relationship with Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Moore made it clear in the film that he has never voted for Clinton.

In “Michael Moore in TrumpLand,” Moore takes center stage in a way like he never has before. The film is a one-man show extolling the virtues of Clinton’s political career and her potential for greatness as a president before an audience largely composed of skeptics. It takes places in the largely conservative community Wilmington, Ohio — the birthplace of the banana split, and located in Clinton County.

“I wanted to do something subversive here, something that wasn’t expected,” he told reporters at a press screening Wednesday. “That I, of all people, would be making the case for Hillary.”

Maybe once Moore’s finished tooting his own horn, he can send a thank-you card and a great big box of chocolates to the folks who made this possible:

Beautiful.

While Moore may be more open about the electioneering involved in Michael Moore in Trumpland and the making of the movie, it’s nothing new for the politically-minded director, whose films often have an unapologetic political agenda to them. What’s new is that Citizens United allows Moore to be honest about it. The film that sparked that landmark First Amendment ruling, Hillary: The Movie, was inspired by Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, released in the summer of 2004, and the influence that film had on the election season, as David Bossie, the president of Citizens United, wrote earlier this year. The Federal Elections Commission decided differently, that the two films were different because the latter was “electioneering.”

In its decision, the Supreme Court took away the power from government to make those kind of highly subjective distinctions, freeing Michael Moore to be honest about his intents and leaving fans of works like his or John Oliver’s anti-third party “electioneering” who nevertheless support a candidate who opposes Citizens United and is proud to be in favor of banning films that depict her in a negative light in an uncomfortable position if they ever thought about the consequences of their professed policy preferences on political speech. Unless they assume, as partisans on both sides often seem to, that laws restricting speech and media should only apply to those with whom they disagree, since those are the people who are wrong.

Talk about awkward.

Something for Moore to keep in mind:

Yep.