1.   The Legislature finds and declares that:

   a.    in 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;

   b.    nevertheless, this decision recognized that there may be circumstances in which a state's enforcement interest justifies a more limited identification requirement;

   c.    the court noted that in the area of campaign finance, in particular, a more narrowly drawn statute may be permitted;

   d.    prior 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

   e.    because 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.

   L.1995,c.391,s.1.