Stand by Your Ad provision

The provision was intended to force political candidates running any campaign for office in the United States to associate themselves with their television and radio advertising, thereby discouraging them from making controversial claims or attack ads.

The DISCLOSE Act, proposed by Democrats in a response to the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (which held that corporations and labor unions have a constitutional right to spend unlimited sums of money on advocacy ads), would have required the heads of non-campaign organizations funding political advertisements (such as "super PACs" or corporations) to appear on-camera and follow the "stand by your ad" requirement.

It was eventually absorbed into the BCRA, which addressed the issue of financing of political campaigns, that was signed into law by George W. Bush on March 27, 2002.

Failure to comply may result in penalties from the Federal Election Commission, but more importantly, loss of the "lowest rate" status for political ads, for the entire duration of the campaign.

Candidates have been known to take the mudslinging online, hoping that it would create sufficient controversy that media outlets would afford the coverage it needed without associating themselves to the attack.

During the 2004 presidential election for instance, George W. Bush's campaign produced a web video with the conclusion "Kerry (D-MA) – Brought to you by the special interests" and sent it out to six million supporters via email.

[10] Another known tactic is for any campaign or person to upload an exclusive online attack ad, known or anonymously, on a video-sharing website such as YouTube without taking any credit for it.

This was highlighted by the media after an anonymous editor uploaded a parody 1984 ad depicting Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) as "Big Brother" during the 2008 Democratic primaries, which garnered over five million views online.

[12] In March 2023, a final rule was put in place by the FEC that provided more clarity around the concept of public communications, in an effort to better apply regulatory standards upon online and digital political ads which have largely been unaddressed; in so doing, the FEC's attention on internet advertisements has brought about a new definition: "communications placed for a fee on another person's website, digital device, application, or advertising platform,” that can withstand technological advances to come.

[13] Howard Dean, who ran for the 2004 Democratic nomination, took some unwarranted attacks from people who were not aware of the act, who thought he was being self-important or obvious in the phrasing.

[14] While opponents of the provision at its time of introduction lodged challenges in court that it would violate the First Amendment, others believed that the law merely stiffened disclaimer guidelines and had no effect on limiting free speech.