donors to those donors even in cases like this where there is no connection between those donors and the communication in which they're being identified clients and also by mr i mr data routinely engages as treasurer middies that are governed by this ordinance and consequently is personally subject to criminal penalties you know organizations you controls  davis to hang the court's hat on in terms of trying to just because the would be active in the election and that would mean it would want to do these kinds of publication that would trigger the right i'm not sure how a political committee would point a facial injunction and that being the case you know i would rely on munson which which states that there's there's there standing to raise issues even if one is not directly disclaimer quote ensure the voters are fully informed as the identity of the speaker and what we're talking about here is the interest of the government in identifying speakers on the base of communications so that voters can passed i would i have a couple responses i mean the st is the information this is a dark money situation every dollar going to and from these organizations already use it and in fact the so that i think my st response by nd is that the argument proves too much even if it's true that there is an interest in knowing the primary numbers to an organization and that again is something that california law requires which is not at stake in this case this is about approved proposition f because they wanted more complete and more visible disclaimers that would allow them to follow the money and understand the forces behind the advertisements that are trying to influence the at some formulations a demonstrated probability that the same party is will be subjected to the same requirements again here we have no we have nothing in the record and not even any argument showing that the briefs say that the parties want to be active in the election but that's simply not sufficient so we just don't have any information and appellant hasn't put forward any information that would satisfy y necessarily run ads especially ads that would necessarily trigger these requirements we don't know what the donors are going to be if if counsel has said that they intend now to go forward supporting proposition j we don't know if there was ads are going to trigger the secondary contributor requirements or even if they'll pose any unconstitutional burdens so we just simply don't have the information that other cases have held sufficient to adequate opportunity to do so we've been briefing us for a while is now before the court for your argument i think if there were information i would expect it already have come to the court's attention so i i think counsel o already have the burden and they had an opportunity to satisfy it i wanted to get back to i realize i forgot to answer your question about mr davis and we again we don't know what mr david's future involvement is going to be  elections or even i don't think we even have evidence in the record a back about his past activities we know that he is the treasurer of the yes on prop the committee but again that that measure is already passed so i still think we have the information that other cases the found sufficient to satisfy the requirement that just claim as are generally suspect that they can only be limited or sometimes in the brief that argues that they are fundamentally inappropriate and of the st amendment because they appear on the ads themselves citizens united  have the right to communicate their message the public they need adequate space to do that but there's just claimers that are still before this court to not t v so much space on the advertisement that appellant's cannot convey their message enjoined those there's another segment of advertisements where the disclaimer would take between i think seventeen and thirty percent and in those cases the court found well that the appellant still have two thirds of the ad space remaining that's adequate him to convey their message the district court didn't feel it necessary and i think this is appropriate to set forth a bright line that would always apply in every case district court simply looked at the facts before him and determined that when the ad space took you know the vast majority of the ad it was unconstitutional as applied to those ads but upheld the remainder of the regulation where it would not take so much space on the advertisement that appellant's could not effectively convey their message to the  the city said right away we recognize that where a disclaimer takes the entirety of the ad or even the vast majority of the ad that is and so that the district court follow the city suggestion and i respect they put in evidence only as to their own advertisements they didn't show burden as to any other speaker in san francisco and so while they've said they're applying they're sticking they should really they've only m e showing for an as applied challenge and that's what they just record held as  well so i think maybe i'll turn now to the secondary what we call the secondary contributor requirement if there are no other questions so the secondary contributor requirement again is meant to allow voters to be able to follow the money to understand the sources of funding behind the speech and this is serving a very important governmental interesting one that's been recognized even as compelling especially when the situation here with the voters or acting as the legislators they are entitled to know essentially is lobbying them for their votes and the regulation furthers that interest and i don't really hear any argument to the contrary except that the voters may be confused they may misunderstand what the regulations are and what the information provided to them means but the washington state grange he is tells us that we cannot make those assumptions about voter confusion