there are two sides of this. Do the American people have the right to know about these issue advocacy ads and who pays for them? But second of all, on the other side, my colleague mentioned the point, the person who makes the contribution. And the Supreme Court has already declared that individuals have a right to privacy. In the NAACP versus Alabama case in 1958, they say that privacy and group association is indispensable to the preservation of our system of government; and so what this bill is trying to do is making these people also tell who is giving money and so forth. I just find that just really frightening that they not only want to step on our right and freedom of speech, but now they want to step on our right of privacy. I think this is what this is all about is those kinds of freedoms.
Ed Whitfield: “there are two sides of this. Do the American people have the right to know about these issue advocacy ads and who pays…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a bill on issue advocacy ads and privacy rights.
Share
More from Ed Whitfield
In order to reach Congress' statutory volumes there needs to be more ethanol in the system than can be absorbed just through E10.
It is critically important that the Federal Government maintains its leadership role of promoting, encouraging, and enticing interested stakeholders.
Well, some States would disagree with that. I've talked to many of them, and they view--even though you went through a process, that you set the standard.
I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: At the end of the bill, add the following new section: SEC. 5. NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED. No…





