>There is no infringement of free speech going on.
Sure there is. If they're taking money, they're not free to endorse without the requirement that they also disclose the payment.
That said, while we can certainly argue about what's reasonable at the margins, the government has a well-established (qualified) power to regulate commercial speech in particular--first amendment notwithstanding. You can't knowingly make false statements of fact in an ad.
There also already exist a variety of disclosure rules although these get into a much more gray area, especially given that you have everything from outright pay-for-play celebrity endorsement deals to giving bloggers free stuff to review. And, in general I agree that disclosure of things that could lead to conflicts of interest is very reasonable and not overly burdensome.
Sure there is. If they're taking money, they're not free to endorse without the requirement that they also disclose the payment.
That said, while we can certainly argue about what's reasonable at the margins, the government has a well-established (qualified) power to regulate commercial speech in particular--first amendment notwithstanding. You can't knowingly make false statements of fact in an ad.
There also already exist a variety of disclosure rules although these get into a much more gray area, especially given that you have everything from outright pay-for-play celebrity endorsement deals to giving bloggers free stuff to review. And, in general I agree that disclosure of things that could lead to conflicts of interest is very reasonable and not overly burdensome.