In the case in question, Chief Justice John Roberts asked the government lawyer whether the law in question could also prevent the publication of a campaign-related book, if it was paid for be a corporation or labor union.
"If it's a 500-page book, and at the end it says, 'and so vote for x,' the government could ban that?" Roberts asked.
Kagan's deputy, Malcolm L. Stewart, said yes.
"We could prohibit the publication of that book," he responded.
In a later oral argument, Kagan slightly modified that position, but still found herself arguing that the government could ban certain pamphlets, depending on who paid for their publication.
"And if you say that you are not going to apply it to a book, what about a pamphlet?" Robert asked.
"A pamphlet would be different. A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering, so there is no attempt to say that [law] only applies to video and not to print," Kagan responded.
Shortly after McConnell's comments, his office highlighted the case in an email to reporters, suggesting famous pamphlets like Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" and the Federalist Papers could be banned under Kagan's logic.
Classic statist shut-uppery, argued by a classic statist apparatchik.