The rise of unregulated, veiled campaign advertising (i.e. "sham" issue advocacy) has frustrated the framework of campaign-finance law, and has played an influential role in the 2008 election cycle. Confronting this issue, this Note sets forth a proposal to constitutionally address the harmful effects of sham issue advocacy. Heeding lessons from the Supreme Court's recent decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, this Note posits that regulatory limitations on political speech and spending too often conflict with established First Amendment principles. Therefore, campaign-finance reformers should employ legal controls utilizing "counterspeech" rather than censorship. Counterspeech doctrine envisions additional, opposing speech as the appropriate remedy for problematic expression. Embracing that concept, this Note advocates a brightline regulation providing for immediate candidate response to preelection ads referencing those candidates. This method can enhance debate and campaign accountability in a manner consistent with First Amendment values.
