When the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill became law, unprecedented restrictions were placed on the free speech rights of private citizens. It is now illegal for a group of people to organize, pool their resources and purchase broadcast media ads supporting or opposing political candidates within 60 days of November’s election. The rationale was to eliminate the influence of advocacy groups that have become increasingly effective at bringing certain issues to the attention of voters.

But the bill has one big gaping loophole. I call it the Michael Moore loophole, because it greatly increases the influence that filmmakers like Moore can have on elections. You see, McCain-Feingold only regulates things that are traditionally viewed as ads; movies are unregulated. In other words, Hollywood liberals like Michael Moore and his financial backers at Miramax—a company run by Democratic money-man Harvey Weinstein—can put out movies that, they hope, will sway elections. Their opinions are not subject to the restrictions of McCain-Feingold. But, because you and I don’t have access to Hollywood’s distribution channels, our speech is restricted by law.

When I interviewed Michael Moore about his upcoming film Fahrenheit 9/11, I asked him whether it would be an attack ad against President Bush in the form of a movie. He didn’t deny the premise of my question, saying only, “Oh, so you know what I’m going to film before I film it.” Of course, given Moore’s previous statements, it doesn’t take a psychic to predict how he would portray President Bush.

Fahrenheit 9/11 was shown for the first time this week at Cannes, and it turns out that these predictions were correct. Reuters characterizes the film as “a blistering tirade against the Bush administration” and cites unnamed reviewers who say it’s an “angry slice of propaganda” and is “so emotionally effective that it could play a part in influencing vacillating voters in November’s presidential elections.”

Now we learn that several prominent Democratic party operatives have been hired to promote Moore’s film. Helping out are Howard Wolfson (Hillary Clinton’s former press secretary), Michael Feldman (an Al Gore advisor during the election of 2000), Mark Fabiani (the Clinton Administration official who spent his time trying to prove the existence of the vast right-wing conspiracy), and Chris Lehane (Al Gore’s campaign spokesman).

So, is Fahrenheit 9/11 a documentary, or is it a feature-length political advertisement? The only apparent difference is how films and advertisements are financed and distributed. And, of course, that’s the problem for conservatives; mass-market films must go through Hollywood, which is not sympathetic to conservative views. Sure, it’s a business first and foremost, so if the less strident liberals in the industry think they can make money from a right-of-center film, the film would probably get a green light. But their worldview makes them disinclined to believe there’s a market for such films, so until such a market is proven, they probably wouldn’t distribute any documentary films made from a conservative perspective. And if they won’t distribute them, how can a market be proven?

Rather than gripe about it, though, conservatives need to build a parallel infrastructure. We need to find, foster and fund the creative talent that can challenge the ideological monopoly of leftists in Hollywood. We need to figure out how to distribute conservative films, even if it means taking the financial risk of renting theaters to show them. We need to tap into the dollars of that vast right-wing conspiracy and start challenging the left in the various media that they dominate. We can’t demonstrate that a market exists without making the films first. And films don’t get made by simply complaining about the forces that are aligned against us.

To paraphrase a line from Field of Dreams, if we build it, they will come.