Whether requiring political advertisers to name their donors' donors within their advertisements advances any important or compelling state interest

QUESTIONS PRESENTED San Francisco election ads must name up to nine separate donors: their speakers’ top three donors, and for each of those donors that is a committee, that donor’s top two donors, along with the dollar amount given by each primary and secondary donor. Donors’ donors must be named regardless of whether they are even aware of the campaign, let alone support it. The city requires that the “disclaimer” including this information appear in writing, on the screen or as part of any print advertising, at certain minimum sizes, and that it be spoken, except for the dollar amounts, at the start of radio and video ads. See S.F. Campaign & Governmental Conduct Code § 1.161(a); S.F. Ethics Comm’n Reg. § 1.161-3. Petitioners cannot run ads disclosing secondary donors, fearing that doing so would confuse and mislead the voters about the identities of the campaign’s supporters. The secondary donor speech mandate also barred petitioners’ 15and 30-second ads, because the required spoken “disclaimers” ran 32 to 33 seconds. Likewise, the required written “disclaimers” entirely wiped out petitioners’ smaller 2x4 inch newspaper ads. Although San Francisco has since exempted ads of up to 30 seconds from the requirement to speak about secondary donors, and no longer requires that print ads of 25 or fewer square inches name secondary donors, the disclaimer would still consume and displace 51% of the screen for up to 33% of petitioners’ video ads’ duration, 35% of petitioners’ 5x10 inch print ads, 23% of petitioners’ 8.5x11 inch mailers, and, when spoken, the first 53-55% of petitioners’ 60-second video ads. The questions presented are: 1. Whether requiring political advertisers to name their donors’ donors within their ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued advertisements advances any important or compelling state interest; and 2. Whether San Francisco’s secondary donor speech mandate violates the First Amendment freedoms of speech and association.