Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Advertising topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New Hampshire committee hears debate over removing 'political' label from print ads
Summary
Representatives pushed to remove a required "political ad" header from newspapers, periodicals and billboards in House Bill 107; witnesses and committee members expressed sharply divided views about transparency and disproportionate penalties for inadvertent omissions.
Representative Christine Perez, sponsor of House Bill 107, told the Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs Committee that the bill would remove a requirement that print political advertising carry the words “political ad” at the top and instead leave the statutory “paid for by” disclosure at the bottom.
Perez said the change is intended to protect very small, local newspapers after a Londonderry weekly was prosecuted for failing to put the header on several ads. “This eliminates that responsibility,” Perez said, adding that “people still have to put ‘paid for by’,” which she identified as statutorily required.
The bill drew opposition from residents and a nonprofit. Linda Bundy of Antrim said printed political advertising should be identified “in the interest of transparency and accountability,” warning that “cleverly crafted material can appear to be unbiased reporting when it is not.” Kaylee Estradio, a public policy fellow with the nonpartisan nonprofit Open Democracy, told the committee HB 107 would “effectively delete” the existing RSA requirement that political advertisements be labeled in print and would “allow for the unintentional perpetuation of political misinformation.”
Committee members pressed sponsors on enforcement and intent. A sponsor noted that the omission in the Londonderry case resulted in misdemeanor charges and that, because the statute’s penalties apply across the chapter, a printer or small paper could face severe consequences. As one witness put it, the charges were “class A misdemeanors, which carry up to 1 year in jail and a $2,000 fine,” and because multiple ads were involved “she could have been imprisoned for 6 years” under cumulative charging, according to testimony.
Sponsors said their intent is limited: to remove the top-of-ad labeling obligation for newspapers, periodicals and billboards while keeping bottom-line disclosure requirements that show who paid for the ad. Opponents said the visible “political” label helps readers quickly distinguish ads from reporting and protects voters from being misled.
The committee did not take a final vote on HB 107 during this hearing. Committee members discussed alternative approaches, including whether to revise the enforcement provisions that attach chapter-wide penalties, and encouraged the representative to meet with the chair to discuss possible statutory carve-outs or remedial language.
The public hearing record showed two written supporters and about 20 opposed on the signup sheet, and multiple speakers urged the committee to preserve the current labeling requirement.
The committee noted the complexity of enforcement language and signaled it would consider changes that focus on penalties rather than eliminating the labeling requirement outright.
