least court jonathan sit around for the attorney general of delaware with the court's permission i reserve three minutes rebuttal you can in citizens united the supreme court reiterated that quote the public has an interest in knowing who is funding speech oh you know the state has an interest in clarification along this area here as are saying though if oter snow who is funding election related communications or explain it citizens united they can better evaluate those messages and make more informed choices all action that delaware's disclosure act directly advances those important public interest the state legislature so why in pursuing those interests you need up to four years of of information about contributors isn't the state's interest much greater for those who are speaking about election related activities closer to the election or white why mention it in the district or did not address it in fact of course the only distinctions which this report worked were had to do with the scope of the speech covered by the act of course i'd be happy to address the merits of a point i think that there are  a couple of considerations that support that kind of election period definition the idea that the legislature had in mind and this is reflected in the definition is that it should capture the relevant period when campaigning may be going on the way it fall if you're an incumbent it covers your term in office which for some offices may reach that far back on offer all of which is to depend on the term of office and for challengers it's triggered by when the first contribution is made which also indicates when important one is that money is fungible and so even money given some time ago may help organizations like the s f or others when they ultimately get to the point of making communications closer to the election  second is that individuals and organizations that contribute money to organizations i think can be reasonably expected to know the causes of those organizations are advancing and so it should come  no surprise that if you give a contribution to a organization like the s f even three years ago that money may well be used to advance us outs message and therefore it will be important to the electorate to know that if in fact that money did help fund and support the election related communication it is made much closer to the event who is behind the the funding and so i think it contributes very directly to letting the public know who is in fact providing the backing reach bacteria though it has not been tested in court yet and i mean even if the absence of a and i even marking restriction wouldn't invalidate the statute as should we take account of its money money is fungible and when you give to a group you can anticipate that your money if you're getting on on an unrestricted basis may well be used for any purpose including the purpose of election related speech the d c circuit made that very point in the  now or case which was a decision by judge then tell in which he noted that the public has an interest who is in knowing who is speaking about a candidate and who is funding that speech no matter whether the contributions were made toward administrative expenses or independent expenditures suggested that there are reasons why leaving out your marking requirement does not undermine the important interests here or adding a substantial way to the burdens that are maybe involved so one of the things that the district who ar talked about was that in its view the voter god fell outside of the express of c you should see dichotomy and that that was sort of part of the rationale for coming up with neutral communications what's your view on where that falls off of i presume from your perspective it obviously falls snack within it i mean she defines advocacy as a communication that is intended to affect voters choices at the ballot box well your honor in terms of the test about express advocacy or the functional equivalent of course the supreme court has held that there is no need for disclosure laws like disclosure act to be limited to senator supporting that conclusion now both in general the strength of voter guides and with respect to this particular gore records is the only communication in front of the court on this appeal and that's why i challenge this particular guide says that in its preamble those which are just purely academic interest i absolutely agree with your honor and i think that the fact that the district court in this case was unable apparently to ultimately apply its own test shows how difficult or perhaps impossible it can be to draw that line i think that's why i was in court has repeatedly and warst the electioneering communication definition in the federal statute which is essentially the one that was barred by the delaware legislature which you describe as usually understood and object in the lead  determinable because it does not get into the impossible world of line drawing that you've described it clearly defines and easily understood terms relevant universe of communications well what is th respect to dollar thresholds in particular where legislate tours will have particular knowledge about realities of politics and what you can buy the standard is even more deferential but is it is the without a must the unless  monetary threshold chosen is wholly without rationality the court should accept it in this case we actually put in evidence that supported the absolute reasonableness of the triggers here but in any event  the standard is a very deferential one and there are some of those evidence with you can actually reach every single who're in delaware with one hundred fifty dollars and is that possible that it wasn't in delaware on our belief that was in a delaware house district ok it was ok with him or one particular who is illustrated with that but again delaware is a very small state and the last census had a fewer than a million we tried to bear in mind the lesson from wisconsin right to life about being restrained in discovery in these circumstances were first remember rights are at stake went directly to challenging or testing the  particular allegations in class complaint and particularly among the core allegations there initially were ones about the chilling or burdening effect of the law on the s f and its members and what harassment or reprisals which as you know which you may recall is the test of the supreme court has said is the one that in as applied challenges needs to be satisfied for a group to show that the burden on it and its members is so great that a lot might not be applied is nothing necessary at this point for and as for a resolution as an as applied challenge of course what would be relevant would be determined by the legal standard that governs the challenge the district court set out its own test which had to do with neutrality and it was because of that and because of the district courts of knowledge and its opinion that the potential factual bases for applying that test were not clear that there was discussion of further discovery we think that's not the correct test we think that under the correct the record is absolutely sufficient to render a decision that the disclosure act may be applied to the communication at hand me i'm trying to reach voters that are concerned about this issue to me that something more than just academic interest in education that you're going to have an impact on the election always might not tell the voters home particularly individuals about a difficulty is that because the state's position is that you can label any amount of disclosure disclosure and you can trigger that with anything related to an election well that's true but that's what exactly the disclosure disclosure has to be i i'm sorry they manage with menus but no it's the make is that i'm pretty yak i do i do want to answer your question and i think it comes back to this idea of the interest you know if there's an agreement there has to be some level of  state relied on was an under ten and under west virginia law we wouldn't be regulated because there are specific exemptions for voter guides there's a specific and in fact there was a broad exemption for very guys they got exactly what your honor is asking how can we tell how unusual describes advocacy and i think it was but no nineteen and what i'm going to understanding is how is it that the guy doesn't fall smack within that definition the center voter guides consider advocacy in the line of buckley i would disagree with that statement because and this i think is the macro point that i'm trying to respond to is that anything impacts an election any sort of advocacy delaware is asking for in a package aren't we actually provided a chart you know our in our brief or we laid out your views are really similar to packard's you know the statute provides for what disclosures packs have to make in section eighty three  concede i think we're all agreeing that the reason we're applying the heightened scrutiny is because of these burdens on association on the right to associate in private the question becomes the question becomes exactly how close they fit us and i think in some ways the state will weigh the candle when they said well you know we should be able to look back for years because you know the contributor knows what they're getting to the money is fungible it won't come as a surprise that you know what particular in the sense that in what conceivable universes hundred one hundred dollars given three and a half years ago connectable to an organization speech three and a half years later i mean that that's that's simply too far do you raise an argument below we  clarity especially on the question of whether to trust issue out and see how how is that i mean you cite you're suggesting that section four needs is united was was dicta but you say the seventh circuit case on that where in citizens united itself you find language suggesting that section to be dealt with advertisements i don't see any reference to advertisements in there and not then when we deal with section four that's a whole thing that's not take them whether it's dictum or not it was based upon a distinct height of communication when  realize i think that's a very narrow understanding of what election related means when you see a lot more you know without we're sure if you're poor and ill because i think again that this is something where it's just sort of been been lost in very difficult cases buckley when it talks about the informational interest talks about you we need to know who stands behind these on these particular candidates and required a pretty close between what it means to stand behind a candidate and what gets close and that  careful for first of all if it fits through the c three requirement from the i r s which i would he has a really good interest rate if there's not a policy decision made about who will not think that's a different interest move it up the something or whatever right you have a list of candidates and either a check or an x you know yes they are a go they're not that will fall within what the your point is any kind of vote of god should be there and not fall within the ambit of the act as long as the intent of the organization is stated to be education of you the district court and tenant and that was not appealed by west virginia west virginia now has experience of exactly to us in order guys are split in order to firm the district court we have to adopt a neutral communication doc i don't believe so i in gray area because federal law says you can give money to an organization you will get a tax adoption for it you will be protected from disclosure by federal law but then we can make this communication a fourth circuit rejected the idea of an exemption you know based on donor disclosure on that is a line that can be drawn and the fact is that when citizens united talks about disclosure it's not talking about the disclosure of citizens united stoner's it that was under existing federal rules at the time of if you give for the purpose of a particular communication or you give for the purpose of this type of communication that you just get disclosed in the same way that if i get money to you i actually don't know who's running for you know office and dollar right now but you know if someone says something about the tally versus california or a number of other you know very longstanding cases about the fact that there is such a thing as privacy and civil society i think what's different about this case is that delaware's theory is so broad that it would involved with elections yes i and i don't represent them they put out of voter scorecard and and you don't dispute that that that voter score card has important informational how is it that that voter score card when you remove the color coding in your movie grades so that it is then the voter how it loses that important informational interest because i think i think you have to take seriously the idea that voter is a sovereign entity a someone who has his or her own things on his or her own head when you get information and i think this again goes to the broader point about the seals are the military uni animal and in the voter you know where you've got this issue of i just learned that this person likes fluffy animals or hunting with high caliber rifles or what have you how that will be interpreted by the voter will who depend on the internal workings and beliefs and and views of that voter and i think that's that's different from saying this person gets enough or this person gets color coded red although even that depending on the facts it could also have i think the promise if you're taking the agency away from the voter you know that the information and how it's used that that's a fundamental part of the sovereign agency of a free citizen and i think that that he's given a fairly  deference and in some ways that's what's behind a lot of this is that to the extent we set out that that if you parse the same to the two sides of the same coin on one hand you want to have a situation where the speech gets done and if it's getting done because people want to keep their associations private that's information that's not going to the to the the mind of the person with his or her own beliefs too much of the work is happening inside the head of the voter to attribute all of that to the original speech and i think this is again i think you overturn buckley if you say that that isn't true and i think a lot of the problem is that you know you how these are very difficult cases that are lengthy that are complicated they need to be read and in harmony with each other because none of them have ever been or ever been overturned except for portions of and the some impact on people's association rights the disclosure of people's privacy asians may have some amateur effect there the courts have not been blind to that indeed buckley itself acknowledged that public disclosure quote ma individuals who otherwise might contribute nonetheless recognizing that there might be some impact on the associational interest the supreme court in buckley adopted the threats reprisals and harassment test as the standard by which we should judge whether that impacts on the so she tional interest is great enough that it can outweigh the important person them interests that are advancing by disclosure laws and i would refer this court to the third circuit own and bank decision it held that the state interests remoted by the few because reporting and disclosure requirements justify the indirect burden imposed on first amendment interests and that compel of disclosure requirements were constitutional in the absence of a reasonable probability that disclosures with subject their contributors rights irrational or uprising that is the test of there is i think absolutely a recognition you're that there will be some impact on the association all right but that there are very very important interests on the other