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?