{"data":{"id":"us-nj/n.j.-stat.-19-44a-22.2","jurisdiction":"us-nj","citation":"N.J. Stat. § 19:44A-22.2","heading":"Findings, declarations relative to campaign advertisements","body":"1.\tThe Legislature finds and declares that:\na. \tin 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;\nb. \tnevertheless, this decision recognized that there may be circumstances in which a state's enforcement interest justifies a more limited identification requirement;\nc. \tthe court noted that in the area of campaign finance, in particular, a more narrowly drawn statute may be permitted;\nd. \tprior 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\ne. \tbecause 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.\nL.1995,c.391,s.1.","path":["TITLE 19 ELECTIONS"],"source_url":"https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/statutes/STATUTES-TEXT.zip","current_through":"P.L.2025, c.405, and J.R.22","vintage":"","retrieved_at":"2026-08-27T17:54:13Z","sha256":"0d80611a3f299d155db6313151691dfb00a794a6c6de8bd645bacf2fce4b68e9","source_id":"us-nj","stale":true,"prev":"us-nj/n.j.-stat.-19-44a-22.1","next":"us-nj/n.j.-stat.-19-44a-22.3"},"notice":"GroundRules: Original legal text. Not legal advice."}