The long and twisted political history of campaign finance reform often does not make sense, so the public might be excused from being excited by the prospects of a four-hour oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court today over whether new campaign restrictions are constitutional. But the hearing is important – the last time the court held a special session during its summer recess was in 1974, over the Watergate tapes case. And the outcome will determine how hundreds of millions of dollars can be spent and tracked during political campaigns.

The suit against the new law, often called McCain-Feingold but known officially as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, was brought by GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, though Republicans have benefited from the increased ceiling for individual contributions. Democrats tend to be the defenders of the law, against the wishes of unions, though Dems are in the minority in Congress and could fall farther behind on fewer campaign funds. The complicated law itself was made necessary by a overly broad court decision 27 years ago, Buckley v. Valeo, which ruled that campaign money equals speech, striking down limits on campaign spending while upholding some limits on contributions.

The hearing today will cover two areas: Can the act ban soft money, which is unrestricted funding given to political parties that is passed to candidates; and can it restrict third-party advertising, in which businesses and unions air commercials that promote one candidate or knock another without actually saying “vote for” or “vote against” or a similar line? Both of Maine’s senators played roles in creating this act – Sen. Susan Collins was among the first Republicans to sign on to McCain-Feingold and Sen. Olympia Snowe (on today’s Op-ed Page) helped write the provision on limits to corporate and union sponsorship of political television advertising on television in the final sprint of the election season. Maine Rep. Tom Allen was similarly an ardent supporter in the House.

Huge amounts of unregulated soft money corrupts the campaign process by replacing speech – dialogue between candidate and voter, speeches on major issues, in-depth debates -with a candidate’s need to constantly raise money and disproportionately address the concerns of and not offend the minority of voters with large amounts of cash. As Sen. Collins accurately noted the other day, “Big soft money contributions lead to more negative television ads, a lower level of political discourse and make candidates less accountable for their campaigns.” If the court bases its decisions on encouraging political speech, it will prefer the funding limits and reporting under BCRA.

The test for issue ads that determine whether the ad has crossed a line in advocating for or against a candidate no longer work. Smear campaigns contrived by fake advocacy groups bash away with unlimited funding and no clear way to trace the source of the funding. BCRA curbs this practice by stopping the practice of using union or corporate money to pay for these ads, requiring instead that the money be raised voluntarily; and it requires that the groups airing the ads identify their large donors. This provision enhances free speech because it reduces the dominance of well-heeled corporations and turns speech over to individuals who choose to support a cause or candidate.

The court is expected to make a decision about the constitutionality of these provisions by the end of the year. Given the dismal state of the status quo in campaigns, it should defer to Congress, which supported these changes for good reason.