Supreme Court upholds disclosure requirement for issue ads

[DonViejo]

Source: Associated Press



MONDAY, FEB 27, 2017 09:45 AM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has upheld a requirement that forces groups to say who is paying for issue advertising directed at candidates in an approaching election.

The justices on Monday affirmed a lower court decision in a case involving ads that don’t call for the election or defeat of a candidate.

The case involved a Colorado think tank called the Independence Institute and ads that it wanted to run in 2014 that mentioned Colorado Democratic senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet. Udall lost his 2014 re-election bid, while Bennet won a second term in 2016. The Independence Institute said it wanted to run a similar spot in 2016.

The group objected to revealing the names of its largest contributors.

###

Read more: http://www.salon.com/2017/02/27/supreme-court-upholds-disclosure-requirement-for-issue-ads/

[yallerdawg]

1. Why do they want anonymity so bad?

Just ask Ivanka!

[50 Shades Of Blue]

2. GOOD!

[gopiscrap]

3. good

[Javaman]

4. freedom to know...

the flip side to freedom of speech.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Last edited Tue Feb 28, 2017, 08:21 AM - Edit history (1)

If they can't stand the light, they need to get out of political advocacy.

{ on edit: typo; forgot to negate "can". A common kind of typo that I really dislike seeing in other people's posts, but here I made it! }

[Hortensis]

6. Agree.

Subtracting "some of the people can be fooled all the time" (because they insist on it) leaves those who need, and even want to know.

This is very good news--of course.