Late last week, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision in a case called Washington Post v. David J. McManus, upholding the ruling of the US District Court finding that the State of Maryland’s attempts to impose political advertising reporting obligations on online platforms to be an unconstitutional abridgment of these companies’ First Amendment rights. The suit was brought by the Washington Post and several other companies owning newspapers with an online presence in the State. Their arguments were supported by numerous other media organizations, including the NAB and NCTA. The Maryland rules required that online advertising platforms post on their websites information about political ads within 48 hours of the purchase of those ads. That information had to be maintained on the website for a year and kept for inspection by the Maryland Board of Elections for a year after the election was over. The appeals court concluded that the obligation to reveal this information was forcing these platforms to speak, which the court found to be just as much against the First Amendment as telling them to not speak (e.g., preventing them from publishing). As the court could find no compelling state interest in this obligation that could not be better met by less restrictive means, the law was declared unconstitutional.
The Maryland law required the following disclosures on the website of a platform that accepted political advertising:
- the ad purchaser’s name and contact information;
- the identity of the treasurer of the political committee or the individuals exercising control over the ad purchaser; and
- the total amount paid for the ad.
In addition, the platform had to maintain the following information for a year after the election and make it available to the State authorities upon request:
- the candidate or ballot issue to which the qualifying paid digital communication relates and whether the qualifying paid digital communication supports or opposes that candidate or ballot issue;
- the dates and times that the qualifying paid digital communication was first disseminated and last disseminated;
- a digital copy of the content of the qualifying paid digital communication;
- an approximate description of the geographic locations where the qualifying paid digital communication was disseminated;
- an approximate description of the audience that received or was targeted to receive the qualifying paid digital communication; and
- the total number of impressions generated by the qualifying paid digital communication
The appeals court found that this “compelled speech” forced these platforms to “speak” when they otherwise might not want to – the “speaking” being the mandatory publication of information on their website. The court also pointed to the potential of these rules to chill political speech, by compelling companies to reveal information about those who might otherwise not want to disclose that they are taking a position on a controversial issue or election. The court found that anonymity in political speech was part of a long tradition in the US, and it could subject those buying the political ads to harassment. Also, the added burden of collecting this information could cause platforms to reject political ads in favor of advertising where no such burden was imposed.
Continue Reading Court of Appeals Finds Maryland Law Imposing Political Disclosure Obligations on Online Platforms to be Unconstitutional – Finding Different Treatment of Broadcasters is Justified