Details here. What’s interesting to me is that the press release sent to me by email includes the following information omitted from the press release on the CCP website:

Ohio Right to Life’s challenge to the disclosure requirements were not addressed by the Supreme Court in the WRTL case.
“But once an advertisement is deemed to be neither express advocacy, or its functional equivalent, the justifications for forced disclosure disappear,” Hoersting explained. “Reporting requirements can have a chilling effect on citizen speech, and at the very least, they impose a complex and time-consuming burden on citizen groups.”

In a filing last year with the FEC in connection with the WRTL rulemaking, Richard Briffault and I offered these comments explaining why mandatory disclosure is justified even under WRTL in the case of sham issue ads.