Schweiker’s attack ad has two major problems. First, it fails to meet the color contrast requirements, as the text and background are not sufficiently distinct. Where the greater part of the communication is dominated by black lettering or a large and curvy red font with white shadowing atop yellow backdrop, the disclaimer is printed in a subtle hue that fades into the image of the sky. The color scheme does not come close to either of the safe harbor standards; the visual contrasts falls short of that surrounding the largest font (i.e. red lettering with white shadowing on yellow and blue background), and it certainly does not entail black text on a white background.
Second, the text is not “contained in a printed box . . . apart from other contents of the communication.” While the disclaimer’s text is not easily discernable from its background, it is under some of the largest text in the communication. And, when the message equates the opposition candidate’s residence and values with the city of San Francisco, it is hard to argue that strategically perpendicular text in a box that blends into the cables of the golden gate bridge is set apart from the communication at all. Surely the image of the emblematic structure is an integralpart of the communication. Taken together, the disclaimer is neither clear nor conspicuous, but comprises of fuzzy characters blurred in a blatant attempt to hide the identity of the authorizing committee.
Where’s Waldo? Only Half the FEC Seems to Know: Story of not enough contrast and a missing box
Where’s Waldo? Only Half the FEC Seems to Know:
