Mike,
I think the lady gave you the wrong cite. Sec. 5/9-9.5(b) speaks to communications made without the candidates permission. The Caucus and the RP are related, and communications made by the Caucus are made with the RP candidates permission. By way of counterexample, if you decided to form a political committee and were required by state law to comply with the Election Code, you would have to mention that your committee paid for any ads or communications made by your committee on behalf of a candidate without the candidates permission.
The correct cite is 5/9-9.5(a), which is very similar, but missing the "without that candidate's permission" clause. In relevant part, the law states that:
5/9-9.5. Disclosures in political communications
(a) Disclosures in political communications. Any political committee, organized under the Election Code,that makes an expenditure for a pamphlet, circular, handbill, Internet or telephone communication, radio,television, or print advertisement, or other communication directed at voters and mentioning the name of a candidate in the next upcoming election shall ensure that the name of the political committee paying for
any part of the communication, including, but not limited to, its preparation and distribution, is identified clearly within the communication as the payor.
I do not believe that this law, however, requires that the name of the entity that paid for a yard sign to be identified on that sign. FIrst off, yard signs are conspicuous by their absence in the communications identified in the law. That's not dispositive in and of itself. However, the communications identified-- pamphlet, circular, handbill, Internet or telephone communication, radio,television, or print advertisement, or other communication directed at voters and mentioning the name of a candidate... are different than yard signs, in that they are distributed to persons without that person asking for them--in other words, they are ads. As Mike pointed out, the mailers sent by the Caucus on behalf of the RP had the disclosure language. On the other hand, in order to obtain a yard sign, one must (at least in theory) ask for one--in other words, take an affirmative step to obtain one. In addition, yard signs are displayed on private property, unlike a flier that goes through the US mail or a handbill distributed on a train platform. I understand that one could argue that a yard sign is "a communication directed at voters" and as such, would be subject to the law. I do not believe this to be the case, as a sign is posted by a private citizen on private property, but I leave open the possibility.
Please note--I am not an election lawyer. There is undoubtably case law on this topic available, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to seek it out. My opinion is based on my reading of the law, and on the antecdotal evidence that I've gathered by looking at yard signs in surrounding communities.
Posted Saturday Mar 28, 2009 12:22
#