19:44A-22.2.Findings, declarations relative to campaign advertisements
1.The Legislature finds and declares that:
a. in McIntyre v. Ohio, 63 U.S.L.W. 4279 (U.S. April 19, 1995) (No. 93-986), the United States Supreme Court invalidated, on First Amendment grounds, an Ohio statute prohibiting the distribution of campaign materials which did not bear the issuer's name and address;
b. nevertheless, this decision recognized that there may be circumstances in which a state's enforcement interest justifies a more limited identification requirement;
c. the court noted that in the area of campaign finance, in particular, a more narrowly drawn statute may be permitted;
d. prior decisions of the United States Supreme Court have established that regulation of campaign finance may be justified by a state's interest in preventing actual or perceived corruption; and
e. because the McIntyre decision calls into question the validity of certain New Jersey statutes requiring disclosures on campaign advertising, there is a need to revise the law so that it is narrowly-tailored to help effectuate the State's compelling interest in preventing corruption in connection with the financing of campaigns for public office.
L.1995,c.391,s.1.
Section: Previous 19-44a-20.24 19-44a-20.25 19-44a-20.26 19-44a-20.27 19-44a-21 19-44a-22 19-44a-22.1 19-44a-22.2 19-44a-22.3 19-44a-23 19-44a-24 19-44a-25 19-44a-26 19-44a-27 19-44a-27.1 Next
Last modified: October 11, 2016