[Who is John Galt?]

Congress was given the power to regulate the manner of holding elections under the constitution and the first amendment does not change that.

Using your asinine sustitute for reasoning, it would be 'constitutional' for Congress to reinstitute human slavery, if it was done as part of regulating an election.

"Flush out your headgear, New Guy!"

Freedom of speech is not absolute and is restricted in many appropriate situations.

Did I say it was absolute? Hmm? If "the freedom of speech, or of the press" are to be abridged, however, they may not be abridged by "Congress."

How is this restriction any different than those preventing electioneering within 100 yards of the polling places? They are violations of an absolute freedom of speech as well.

Oh, that's a wonderful argument: 'one unconstitutional law justifies another.' How nice...

;>)

[justshutupandtakeit]

None of these are unconstitutional; Congress under the Constitution was given the power to regulate elections. This is what this law does.

Throwing in a red herring about slavery doesn't change that.
Did you think Congress could pass a law stating that all voters must have a slave to carry them to the polling place?

And I know of nothing you have posted which would lead me to believe freedom of speech is NOT absolute. Perhaps you can correct that misimpression?