My concluding comment in this exchange: I have trouble reading even
McConnell to say that "the line between " express advocacy and issue
advocacy has no constitutional significance", particularly in light of its
acknowledgement that  "the concept of express advocacy and the concomitant
class of magic words were born of an effort to avoid constitutional
infirmities." 124 S. Ct. 619, 688.  The Sixth Circuit clearly believed that
it retained at least this measure of constitutional significance. And I
don't believe that lower courts will generally follow the proposition that
Congress can overcome constitutional objections to the regulation of
"express advocacy" simply by very specifically defining the elements of
speech that it believes to have election related impact, and appealing to
"deference."

It is true that McConnell makes clear that "express advocacy" is not a
bright line defense that can be mounted in all instances to fend off
campaign mmunication-related regulation.  I do not agree, and neither did
the Sixth Circuit, that McConnell stripped the line between express advocacy
and issue advocacy of its constitutional significance.