Mark A. Whitt


This Note analyzes the Court's decision in McIntyre. Part II defines the issue presented in the case and provides a general background on disclosure statutes, with particular attention drawn to the Supreme Court's decision in Talley v. California. A brief discussion of various state court decisions post-Talley is also provided. The Statement of the Case in Part III presents the facts, procedural history and holding of the case. Part IV analyzes the Court's holding.

This Note disagrees with the Court's holding for three reasons. First, it argues that the Court misinterpreted the history of anonymous political speech and engaged in circular reasoning by assuming that, because the Framers of the Constitution published anonymously, the Constitution must be meant to protect anonymous speech. Second, the Court should not have subjected Ohio's disclosure statute to the strict scrutiny standard of review, because the statute at issue does not severely restrict First Amendment rights. Third, assuming arguendo that strict scrutiny was the appropriate standard of review, the Court should have acknowledged that Ohio's disclosure statute was narrowly tailored to address the compelling state interests of providing the electorate with relevant information, and identifying those responsible for fraud and libel.