Ah, I see now. There are two points to make:
1. It was said in the context of her being an advocate, arguing in favor of a law for her employer (the government) and does not necessarily represent her personal views. (For instance, I have argued and debated laws while in court that I disagree with completely -- but it's my job to be an advocate for my client).
2. It was in the context of unregulated political advertising since that was the case being argued. She was arguing that all political ads (including pamphlets and books) should state who paid for them, and if they do not then they would violate the law and thus be "banned" -- not for the content of what they say but because they did not follow the law. After all, if the government can require all food products to have (for instance) health information on the label and can prohibit those that do not, that does not mean it is a violation of the 1st amendment.
So yeah, in context I understand the quote. Taken out of context it sounds pretty bad.