Today is a historic day, as the Supreme Court of the United States holds oral arguments on a benchmark law we helped author to restore confidence in our system of elections. The court will hear a landmark four hours of arguments on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, or “BCRA,” presented by three current or former solicitor generals, including the 41st solicitor general, Seth Waxman, who will argue in favor of this law.

The significance of today’s oral arguments cannot be overstated – because the decision the court renders will have a resounding and immediate impact on the financing of federal election campaigns as we know it for years to come. Either the funding of campaigns will be rightly returned to the individual voter, or special interests will continue to increase their influence in ways our campaign laws have never intended. Two of the most critical issues that will lie at the heart of the debate are the law’s ban on so-called “soft money,” and the application of disclosure and funding-source restrictions to issue ads that are, in reality, designed to influence voter opinions of specific candidates. We wrote this measure, known as the “Snowe-Jeffords provision,” because of the shocking proliferation of these ads that, until now, were financed entirely outside of our election laws.

One of the central issues the Supreme Court will consider is the law’s constitutionality, particularly the question of whether the restrictions on campaign spending and contributions interferes with those donors’ freedom of speech. We firmly believe in both the effectiveness and the constitutionality of the law we helped write. In developing Snowe-Jeffords, we worked hand-in-glove with noted constitutional scholars to craft an easily understandable, narrowly drawn, constitutional method of applying disclosure and restrictions to those who fund these campaign ads masquerading as so-called “issue ads.”

We’ve all seen these ads – broadcast advertisements that are influencing our federal elections and, in virtually every instance, are designed for that very purpose. Every focus group that has examined these ads over the last few years proves this – and yet, before BCRA, there was no requirement that voters know who was funding these ads, and there were no restrictions on who could pay for them – restrictions that for decades had been applied to other forms of campaigning. The fact is, if these ads weren’t effective in both impacting voters and skirting election laws, why did their use increase by $350 million within a four-year election cycle? Indeed according to Roll Call, during the 1996 election cycle, an estimated $135 million to $150 million was spent by organizations on multiple broadcasts of about 100 separate ads. In the 1998 cycle, that spending rose to as much as $340 million. And during the 2000 cycle, more than $500 million was spent by 130 groups on 1,100 separate advertisements.

So why didn’t these ads fall under federal election law? The only distinction was that they did not include so-called “magic words” like “vote for candidate x” or “vote against candidate x.” In many instances, the ads directly attacked a candidate for federal office, but because they avoided those “magic words,” they weren’t technically considered campaign ads under existing law. Our provision righted this wrong.

How does our measure work? First, it requires that groups and individuals who run broadcast ads within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election identify themselves, if they mention the name of a federal candidate and the ad can be seen by more than 50,000 people in that candidate’s Senate or congressional district. Why? Because voters should know who is bankrolling ads that influence their vote. But under our provision, only the largest donors, those who contribute more than $1,000, need to be identified – as it should be.

Secondly – and of critical importance – Snowe-Jeffords prohibits the use of union or corporate treasury money to pay for these ads, in keeping with long-standing provisions of law.

Corporations have been banned from direct involvement in campaigns since 1907 and unions were permanently banned in 1947. With Snowe-Jeffords, campaign ads will be funded by voluntary donations from individuals, and not out of corporate or union coffers – again, as it should be.

Finally, the Snowe-Jeffords provision was crafted in keeping with the Supreme Court’s requirements that any laws we pass that might have an impact on speech not be overly vague, or overly broad. In that light, it is vital to note that this measure will not forbid groups, organizations, unions or corporations from raising voluntary funds from individual sources to run any type of broadcast advertisement at any time. What it will do is give the voters the information they need to make informed decisions, and prevent the vast amounts of corporate and union money from distorting our election system.

Time will tell if the Supreme Court agrees with our premise – and the constitutional scholars with whom we developed our approach. What is not in doubt is the imperative of gaining a greater degree of trust from the voters. Trust in the integrity of elections and campaigns is a cornerstone in any democratic system of government. Without it, participation wanes, and the credibility of government itself is strained – or broken.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 is not a final answer to all our campaign ills, but it closes the soft money loopholes and shines a ray of sunshine on flagrant campaign ads. We owe at least that much to the American people.

Olympia Snowe is a Republican senator from Maine. Jim Jeffords is an independent senator from Vermont.