VII. Conclusion

While Chief Justice Roberts refused to explicitly reverse McConnell,88 it seems that for all practical purposes, McConnell has, in fact, been reversed. The WRTL ruling essentially brings us back to a “magic words” test.89 With the fundamental right of speech at stake, the Court must apply strict scrutiny.90 In analyzing the three Life ads in question, the dissent spoke unequivocally that, “[g]iven these facts, it is beyond all reasonable debate that the ads are constitutionally subject to regulation under McConnell.”91 Justice Roberts argued just as vehemently that “[Life]'s three ads are plainly not the functional equivalent of express advocacy.”92 If the members of the U.S. Supreme Court, some of this nation's most sound legal minds, cannot agree whether an advertisement violates the First Amendment, it is best to let the words be spoken. As Chief Justice Roberts so aptly argues, it is no solution to err on the side of suppressing free speech.93