contribute to ballot measure advocacy i think that's a really interesting quotation is it really crystallizes what this case is about if people want to exercise their st amendment rights to speak on a political issue sacrifice their confidentiality and if they don't want their names their employers identities are other personal information put on a publicly accessible government list they have to choose not to contribute to that but with pain the question before the court is is it constitutional or people to make that choice this ordinance says any time and spends two hundred and fifty dollars on issue campaign it has to give the government personal identifying information about anybody who contributed any money for that purpose even just ten dollars twenty dollars five dollars even just a penny test here is exactly that means that there must be a sufficiently important government interest relationship between the burden imposed on speech and that interest must be a substantial one and the city has to show that it can't serve court what it said is that you didn't provide any evidence whatsoever because you didn't provide any affidavit to any information any evidence about members the foundation who had been burdened by this that what you did was you tried to rely on affidavit and testimony from people in other organizations it's that i think the district court has a good point there and so have no history upon which to draw may be able may be able to offer evidence of reprisals with threats directed against individuals or organizations holding similar views you're not a new party that has no history upon which to draw your organization's been around for twenty years and has been involved in a lot of initiative action so i'm struggling with whether there's anything to balance against whatever the interest of the state is i think there's two answers to that you are the st one is it's undisputed that the foundation has never been required to provide this information prior it's never been a subjective test it's a test that determines whether a person of ordinary firmness would hesitate to speak out under these circumstances and that can be proven by showing that similarly improper burden and it because it's too high and remember also that when we're talking about showing facts not only can you not prove today that your supporters won't be harassed next month or retaliate against this month but it's also possible the retaliation interrupt all of these are interesting arguments and there percent i don't remember reading any of these in your brief i don't remember any where in your brief brace where you argued that we are essentially a new party or imposed the improper evidentiary burden on the plaintiffs by forcing us to prove that we ourselves have been harmed in your honour's question was why does buckley cover that and the answer to that is that there are several legal reasons as well as policy reasons why courts do not require that kind of evidence when talking about a chill bird and we did talk about this i know in the in the supplemental brief on standing as well so i do think it is proper for us to make the hesitate to contribute to or speak out on an issue knowing that this information is going to get out but our focus in this case is really primarily about interest and not about the the burden although you know obviously to me both i mean if happened to other organisations then there's nothing to put on the other side scan it well i think you are it's understood that it does impose at least so murder and i mean there is a non zero burden of having to prepare these reports submit them and really provides us the best guide in that and what simpson says you are asked earlier about a balancing test simpson says we're talking about a spectrum here i'm want to hand you kind of rule that says the major sponsor of an initiative has to quit that information out there and that strong informational interest on the other side and that spectrum the court says there's minimal interests such as in sampson now samson and the threshold work two hundred and fifty dollars spending you have to report anybody who's contributed twenty dollars  simple dollar amount because when you get down to that side of the spectrum you're not even talking about sponsors you're just talking about supporters and the public doesn't really have an interest in knowing so hell so let me just interject you you mentioned  your standing briefs a few minutes ago i need to get some clarification on it seems as if your brief is saying that the alleged injury is that the ordinance shilts rio grande what is your allegation or what is your evidence that rio grande intends to work again on a santa fe ballot measure i mean you're only asking for prospective relief you're not asking for anything that  west where's your injury where's your standing injury in facts that supports your claim for perspective really i think you are the it's the st it's undisputed between the parties and also that the district court found that the foundation has been around for twenty years is well known and participating in these kinds of public debates that it will speak out when incidents arise where there's an issue or something that touches on its interests and those interests were all found to be sufficient to get standing in the walker well you know only as applied challenge to this ordinance instead of a facial challenge and that's i think that's a little confusing because that relies it on a misunderstanding of what citizens united said citizens united remember w speech case and in that case the court said that these kinds of disclosure requirements are are constitutional in that context and consequently that left parties with only as applied challenges in the future this is an issue campaign context and so that language doesn't really apply here and i would direct the court to the supreme court of new mexico case that you cite in our supplemental reply brief on standing in the united states there's a supreme court of mexico where there's a very helpful discussion of  important city informational interest it weighed it strength and then it balance the interest against the actual burden alleged is the place if your r g s and found that the interest outweigh the burden this is precisely interest did the district court acknowledge that for a ballot initiative or only looking at one of the prongs of the justification for the and noted that this circuit has found that the strength of the government's interest does barry up and down with the amount spent in terms of its analysis in those cases however the overarching point is not when arguing that the city has no stronger substantial governmental interest in the last year r d f picks the wrong target it is not looking at its own level of expenditures into the election which were at least seven considerations was that they were so onerous that the average person couldn't figure out how to comply with them without going out and hiring an attorney in an accountant to do all the work necessary i mean we don't  says you know when you're talking about a new organization you may be able to borrow at information from other stabs regulations and they're saying that we decent this that you didn't apply to us until i think he said two thousand and seventeen and therefore for all intents and purposes we're new and like a new organization because we don't have operational history under th statute that we could rely upon how do you respond to that well certainly this was not an argument that our jeffords ever presented in the course of this litigation that that ugly why did that only new parties  perfectly provide evidence of different groups and it did not turn on whether the new party had operated under a legal regime or not it was simply whether or not they could so found sort of experience the public on filippi or some sort of activities while providing no no explanation of the effect of activities it does seem that there is not sufficient injury to provide the factual basis for an outside the standing issue when the alleged injury is st amendment shell i think that it's fair to say that courts are fairly lenient in terms of the standard for in st amendment question alleging injury or alleging imminent risk of injury even on the facial claim well i think that it's anything specific about the future other than that they will speak in the future right i think we're in heated agreement the city did question in the supplemental briefing brother archie had had that the rd prong of city to demonstrate the constitutionality this law and that means that we're not required to show that we saw it and then unity which is what the city said you're his argument we are also not required to show that we ourselves have stopped speaking the test for chill is whether a reasonable person would do so even a person who continues to speak in light of the risks of intimidation press of or backlash still can bring in speech in the appropriate case so our standing is predicated on the