context: The Supreme Court has routinely recognized that because disclosure requirements occasion a lesser burden on speech, it is constitutionally permissible to require disclosure for a wider variety of speech than mere electioneering. Citizens United only confirmed the breadth of Congress' power in this regard.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 649 F.3d 34, 70
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that state "express advocacy" definition without an "electioneering communication" limitation was not vague
citation_a.sentence: See Citizens United, 130 S.Ct. at 915 (“Even if the ads only pertain to a commercial transaction, the public has an interest in knowing who is speaking about a candidate shortly before an election”); see also Doe v. Reed, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2811, 2819-22, 177 L.Ed.2d 493 (2010) (upholding disclosure requirement for petition signatories); Natn’l Org. for Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34, 70 (1st Cir.2011) (holding that state “express advocacy” definition without an “electioneering communication” limitation was not vague).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 130 S.Ct. 915, 915
citation_b.parenthetical: "Even if the ads only pertain to a commercial transaction, the public has an interest in knowing who is speaking about a candidate shortly before an election"
citation_b.sentence: See Citizens United, 130 S.Ct. at 915 (“Even if the ads only pertain to a commercial transaction, the public has an interest in knowing who is speaking about a candidate shortly before an election”); see also Doe v. Reed, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2811, 2819-22, 177 L.Ed.2d 493 (2010) (upholding disclosure requirement for petition signatories); Natn’l Org. for Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34, 70 (1st Cir.2011) (holding that state “express advocacy” definition without an “electioneering communication” limitation was not vague).