Posted on 05/08/2003 9:57:21 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:31:11 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court reinstated a lawsuit challenging part of California's campaign-finance law, but suggested Thursday that the rule requiring public disclosure of those opposing or supporting ballot measures is constitutional.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals supported a 1974 California law demanding those who spend more than $1,000 publicly touting or opposing ballot measures must make public their expenditures. The court rejected a claim by the California Pro-Life Council Inc. that said such requirements violated First Amendment free speech protections.
(Excerpt) Read more at bayarea.com ...
Did we read the same article?
The article says the court only required the contributor to identify themselves. This aspect of the decision reminds me of my right to face my accuser.
It did not require them to indentify the nature of their political discourse. In fact, the court pointed out the boundries that infringed on free speech. Neither does this law infringe anyone's ability to participate to any limit.
I'd sure in the hell like to know who's sponsoring commercial, politcal speech. Takes some of the fun out of character assination, unfounded inuendo and politically charged gossip.
What free speech infringement do you read in this article?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.