Here's where I was coming from: they mention that this is something "illegal" at 1:30 but don't go into specifics, then by 3:00 they're full steam into this "Donald Duck" idea for several minutes. At this point, I've already spent several minutes on this video, and they haven't explained what, in particular, was illegal. So all this business about "Donald Duck" has me rolling my eyes, and dismissing the video as a nothing-burger. "Duck costumes, really?" was my thought. All they really needed, to add gravitas to what they were showing, was 1 or 2 sentences reiterating the fact that HRC cannot coordinate with her SuperPAC, and so the revelation that this idea came from HRC is a big deal. That would've jogged my memory about the FEC rules, which weren't at the top of my mind. A better video would've assumed that the audience might lose patience before this point is hammered home. I felt the video was wasting my time and started skipping ahead until I read a comment stating that the HRC-SuperPAC connection is what's important.