Review: ‘Dark Money’ is opposite of fake news

“Dark Money” exposes the dangers of unbridled, anonymous political spending so expertly that it will make you fume with anger, practically quake with distress.

Which is exactly why you need to see it.

Plus, the hero is a journalist, so the movie’s got that going for it.

Kimberly Reed’s documentary spreads itself a little thin at times, occasionally going off on tangents but always coming back to a recurring theme: How the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which held that corporations and unions could spend an unlimited amount of money on in- dependent campaigns, has soured the electoral process.

It’s opened the floodgates for the easy flow of “dark money” — political contributions that are anonymous and unchecked. It’s been a contentious issue in Arizona and many other states;

there’s a battle to get an initiative on the ballot here to combat it (with efforts to keep it off the ballot, as well).

But Reed’s film, which begins in 2011 and runs almost through the present, focuses mostly on Montana, and there’s a reason. In the early part of the 20th century the state’s government was basically owned by a copper company, which also controlled local media. In 1912, however, Montana managed to pass legislation forbidding corporations from making contributions in state elections and requiring disclosure of donations.

That changed in 2010, with Citizens United. Dark money flooded into Mon- tana, with the feared results — during a Republican primary, a candidate named John Ward was targeted. A few days before the primary, a group called “Mothers Against Child Predators,” which is actually a couple of people sending out bulk mail, sent fliers that suggested Ward was cozy with serial killer John Wayne Gacy. “John Ward believes monsters like this deserve to live,” one said.

Except Ward never met Gacy and Gacy never visited Montana. The mailing was too close to the election for Ward to respond. He lost.

The danger here is outside parties rigging the game — basically buying politicians who will do their bidding, and there is ample evidence that this occurred in Montana. How that plays out makes up the bulk of the film, and while Reed is patient (some might say slow) in her pacing, she’s also thorough.

(Note: While the Koch brothers come in for some criticism, “Dark Money” can’t be written off as a partisan hack job. Many of the people affected by — and whose campaigns and careers are damaged by — the anonymous donors are Republicans. They’re just not the kind of Republicans donors can trust to reliably carry out their plans.)

An investigative reporter named John Adams (whose facial hair changes so radically you always have to doublecheck to make sure it’s the same guy) comes across records that help spell out the network of influence. Dogged, he suffers a major setback when his paper closes its long-standing state bureau, home to his beat. So what does he do? Starts his own website, lives out of his truck and keeps reporting. He’s not an enemy of the people. He’s pretty much a hero.

That aspect of the story is interesting, as is the continuing frustration over the inaction of the Federal Election Commission, but Reed might have done well to trim those aspects back a bit. There is more than enough outrage in the central story — the trial of Art Wittich, a state senator, who received dark money — to keep you glued to the film.

And to make you mad, which this movie will do. But it does so the right way — not with bombastic screeds and pronouncements, but with cold, hard facts laid out in such a way as to tell an important story. The next time someone mindlessly spouts “fake news,” show them “Dark Money.” It’s quite the opposite.