I take my role and responsibilities as chairman of the Senate State and Local Government Operations Committee very seriously, especially to uphold the U.S. Constitution. So I am proud that an unconstitutional provision of a Georgia statute was removed in an open and proper way through House Bill 1112, striking a requirement that political ads must be accompanied with the name and address of the individual or group that sponsored the ad.

The recent AJC editorial "Name It: Shameless" (@issue, Aug. 6) contains numerous inaccuracies and ignores very important facts. More importantly, the article "Political Mudslinging Goes Anonymous," written by James Salzer on the Aug. 1 front page, was regrettably biased, suffering from the same inaccuracies and omissions. Both pieces have given readers the impression that changes to current election law in HB 1112 were done in the dark of night, while no one was looking. This, in fact, couldn't be further from the truth.

(ENLARGE)

State Sen. John Wiles (R-Kennesaw) chairs the State and Local Government Operations Committee.

HB 1112 came before the State and Local Government Operations Committee, which I chair, on March 26, 2008, for a publicly announced committee hearing. The secretary of state's office presented the bill to the committee. A provision of the bill concerning anonymous political speech caused me concern, since I was aware of the U.S. Supreme Court case McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, in which the court had held an almost identical Ohio law unconstitutional.

I was aware of this case since former Gov. Roy Barnes had vetoed HB 1361, requiring IDs to purchase a political ad in 2000, and had cited this case to support his veto. I led the opposition to that bill in 2000, and thus when this unconstitutional provision came before my committee, I asked legislative counsel if this provision was, in fact, unconstitutional. He said it was. Several minutes of discussion ensued among the members. When the discussion was complete, I asked if anybody in the audience had opposition to the change. The secretary of state's office stated no opposition to removing this provision. As chairman of the committee, I am entrusted with the responsibility to ensure that the laws we pass are not impeding on constitutional rights. The provision of HB 1112 that forced individuals to disclose their identities and addresses impedes their rights to publish their political views anonymously. This right to free speech is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

As the Supreme Court ruled in the McIntyre case, "The freedom to publish anonymously is protected by the First Amendment and 'extends beyond the literary realm to the advocacy of political causes.' " The case speaks extensively of the Federalist Papers and the anonymous speech that supported the passage of the U.S. Constitution.

The changes to this law went through all proper processes, including a full committee hearing with public comment. The House author of the bill presented it to the Senate Rules Committee, which in a public vote sent it to the Senate floor. When I presented the bill before the Senate, the bill clearly stated in the title that this unconstitutional code section was being repealed. Additionally, the code section was marked for deletion in the bill, so a simple reading of the bill would show this deletion. No senators asked any questions during my presentation.

The Senate version of the bill was then presented to the House two days later for a final vote. At no time during this entire process did anyone, including the secretary of state, object to this removal of an unconstitutional provision. All this information is a matter of public record. The AJC was made aware of this information when my initial interview was conducted, but the reporter chose to disregard these critical facts. As a result of this misleading information, your editorial is incorrect.

If citizens want to stand on a street corner or on the Capitol steps and hand out political pamphlets or voice their opinions about their government, the police cannot force them to reveal their identity or put them in jail. It is their right to free speech and free expression without prejudice under the Constitution of the United States.

While we may disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, it is the law of the land and must be followed.