Question for legal scholars: Will political advertisements still have to state who paid for them?

[scheming daemons]

At least so we know which corporations are advertising for which candidates?


You know... the thing at the end of commercials that says "this message paid for by..."

[Unvanguard]

1. Yes. They upheld the disclosure requirements. n/t

[The Wielding Truth]

3. Good . I was wondering ,too. We can not buy the products or services of supporters

of candidates we don't like, but there will be no un corrupt candidates running.

[Hello_Kitty]

2. My question is will Corporate X be held to the same contribution limits

As a donor to Y Political Action Committee?

[scheming daemons]

4. So... a small silver lining... at least we'll know who to boycott....

...

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

5. It will say - Brought to you by Sunshine and Lollipops Corp. but what it won't say

is that Sunshine and Lollipops is a subsidiary of Polar Bear Rendering Inc.

Disclosure in these cases is meaningless. Remember all the many shell corporations held by Enron?

[TexasObserver]

7. That's it, right there.

Disclosure will mean almost nothing.

First, they won't have to report it until several weeks after the expenditure, and when they do report it, there will be layers that make sure the only thing we can see are the patriotic, wholesome name and some incorporator's name.

Months after the election, a team of investigative journalists might be able to figure out who the real individuals are behind the layers. If there were still such a thing as investigative journalists, of course, which there aren't.

[glinda]

6. They already make up names for their groups.