a california impose a member of burden on ballot measure advocacy and present at least one novel question which was rather the government may condition express advocacy on ballot measures by california regulations failed the strict scrutiny which this court held those regulations that's me now on this court directed that the district court consider whether california an informational interest which was compelling and secondly whether the california regulations are narrowly tailored to advance that interest if they have such a compelling interest now really agree that the state benefit if these measures that the problem here is not present several compelling governmental interest whether or not the regulations are narrowly tailored which we believe they are not  their ballot measures and the informational interest that the government has is satisfied by a run page one time report which lists the expenditures by the organization i've spent on the independent expenditure contributors who gave money to new york and as they extend for the purpose of that expenditure now california has a much different  ballot measures in a five year period or are going to because of the burdens imposed by these regulations and i were chair of and did not do the second expenditure because upon doing the second expenditure the second time in five years that you spend more than a thousand dollars on a ballot advocating a ballot measure you considered a really stupid committee who said committees have a number of influencing a ballot measure now we agree that those can be reported as i have already explained that the supreme court has upheld the reporting of contributors independent expenditures that is when they when they make a contribution to the organization for the purpose of influencing the ballot measure in this case oh here's a question was involvement in politics then for that organization with your contacts for better organization and contributions to that organization are considered to be for political advocacy so  you can regulate them by requiring a report a run time run page report that they have held in massachusetts citizens for life it was a very argument was made th see said well look you know we don't know what's going on here with these organizations should be passed because they're engaging in politics so we can see who their donors are and the supreme court said no we're not going to impose requirement that all of your contributions and expenditures and other pack type burdens be imposed upon you unless it's your major purpose if it's your major purpose then every contribution or every donation to a pac is a rationale of that case and said that disclosing the members or identity of contributors to a private organization undermines the ability of private they have really two different types of vanities one is major purpose and the other is not major purpose and the second distinction here yes we're involved with a ballot measure we're not involved with candidates i mean the supreme court found three compelling governmental interest for our pac type we just closure on major purpose organizations and one of them was the danger  the first time that the only governmental interest regarding ballot measures is the informational interest of the older knowing is contributing and extending money in support of those ballot measures and rules have anything to do with the interest in information for the voters i'm just and that's the only compelling interest this court has recognized treasury fans you know that that takes a certain amount of planning a lot of effort to stay with respect to ballot measures just to curse the other words they decide that they want to do it they don't want to  go through the efforts to form a pac and of course the supreme court in first national bank first brought so the corporations have an absolutely protected first amendment constitutional right to engage in  on each option ok i mean if you set up a pact you have those burdens if you don't and you're subject to these we sippin committee requirements in closing the disclosure of people who contributed within the last year is there between the governmental interest and disclosing contributors with just what somebody who's given a general purpose contribution to an organization that in fact a contribution to an organization you know marked for something else now for the first time in the history of this litigation we've been to the district court twice this is the second time tonight circuit for the first time the government is saying going to spend a little more than a thousand dollars triggering reporting on all this and regulation as a typical many little more than a thousand dollars on advocating a ballot measure what we want is the next us decide to participate in a ballot measure things that may not even been on the ballot or even consider that at the time this person made a contribution this person may or may oppose or support the ballot measure organisations other contributors and donors particularly and popular disfavored organizations like my client and can ruin the state of california will undermine the ability of those contribution will be reported based upon future totally speculative events that of course happened that's happened that is the california pro life council eleven months let us at stake here is the integrity of our political system it's a system in which money talks and the only way to maintain the integrity of the system is to ensure that the voters know talking paying for the political the first amendment because they regulate ballot issue advocacy and they cite me for this proposition when in fact that we did not stand for this proposition but make precisely the same argument before this court in july of two thousand and five when he argued in alaska right to life that the laskar disclosure laws well i'm constitutional for exactly the same reason citing buckley and this court rejected that argument citing a conversation supreme court decision in two thousand and three which explained in clarified that we did not draw a constitutional distinction between candidate advocacy and so called issue advocacy which is what  so in light of the fact that the only remaining counts in this interest lawsuit are based solely on the on the step back with precludes issue advocacy which is a proposition has been rejected by this court  scrutiny should apply to disclosure requirements and this court noted that that lack of clarity in alaska right to life which was the two thousand and six decision coming out of the ninth circuit when the court observed that in bakley the court the supreme court applied exacting scrutiny just asked about i would remind the court about its own decision in alaska and in fact the the three burdens that  alaska to fill out a two page form with basic contact name information california requires exactly the same form for ten you fill out a cover sheet with the contact information and then two lines on a second page that's two nation that didn't come up in alaska the burdens of terminations so i can use alaska to suggest to the court that this is a normal kind of process but i can do though is direct the court to federal law because federal law is exactly the same the relevant regulation for terminating committees under federal law is eleven c f r section one zero two point three and if the court reach that the court will find that an entity terminating a pac has to do exactly the same things under the federal system is under that presupposes that th but we should remember that under federal law c p l c is required to have a pac it doesn't have the option that california offers it so in california i think the trial court the trial judge was arguing that indeed we could simply mimic federal law and require c p l seat to have a pac if that's true then the terminations burdens which are the same under state law and under federal  its burdens if it goes this route or no greater than if it had formed a pact because it's a crucial distinction here which is often obscured in the briefing that the c p l see becomes a pack that does not disclose everything that it does it only accounts for the money spent on express political advocacy and the source of those funds i'm going to move quickly media bias these i agree with judge to smooth over any bias these in reporting one thing we haven't thought of though is the opposition in fact the biggest consumer of these campaign disclosure reports is the opposition whether it opposition to a ballot measure the candidates they study these these data very carefully and they make what use of it they can that's a very darwinian system but we would argue that this serves first mr bott started by noting that this case presents a novel question on what he calls true contributions and i would like to emphasize that that's not really correct mr bopp made the very same argument to the supreme court four years ago in f e c access foma which we cited i think on page forty three of our brief  seventh foam on the court addressed at some length the contention on briefs and it came to a conclusion that to treat your marking provision as the outer limit of acceptable tailoring would disarm major purpose is not political activity on the regular relations that are imposed upon them do they do they pass strict scrutiny so that's how the major purpose works into this into this question  and of course you know they have not argued that this is not the law of the case that that strict scrutiny is applicable here and mcconnell really doesn't change the analysis there's no question that in buckley and c f l the supreme court imposed strict scrutiny for quote mere disclosure it is also true that my card was a little equivocal when they talked about important interests rather than compelling interest number one there are three interests that would justify regulation of candidate advocacy there's only room and interest that would justify the regulation ballot measure and because say and of course referring to for an independent expenditure and they are snagging people who happen to contribute to the organization but not for the purpose of ballot measure or candidate advocacy i mean this is the government now