Opinion ID: 109380
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Requisite Factual Showing

Text: In NAACP v. Alabama the organization had made an uncontroverted showing that on past occasions revelation of the identity of its rank-and-file members [had] exposed these members to economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility, 357 U. S., at 462, and the State was unable to show that the disclosure it sought had a substantial bearing on the issues it sought to clarify, id., at 464. Under those circumstances, the Court held that whatever interest the State may have in [disclosure] has not been shown to be sufficient to overcome petitioner's constitutional objections. Id., at 465. The Court of Appeals rejected appellants' suggestion that this case fits into the NAACP v. Alabama mold. It concluded that substantial governmental interests in informing the electorate and preventing the corruption of the political process were furthered by requiring disclosure of minor parties and independent candidates, 171 U. S. App. D. C., at 218, 519 F. 2d, at 867, and therefore found no tenable rationale for assuming that the public interest in minority party disclosure of contributions above a reasonable cutoff point is uniformly outweighed by potential contributors' associational rights, id., at 219, 519 F. 2d, at 868. The court left open the question of the application of the disclosure requirements to candidates (and parties) who could demonstrate injury of the sort at stake in NAACP v. Alabama . No record of harassment on a similar scale was found in this case. [83] We agree with the Court of Appeals' conclusion that NAACP v. Alabama is inapposite where, as here, any serious infringement on First Amendment rights brought about by the compelled disclosure of contributors is highly speculative. It is true that the governmental interest in disclosure is diminished when the contribution in question is made to a minor party with little chance of winning an election. As minor parties usually represent definite and publicized viewpoints, there may be less need to inform the voters of the interests that specific candidates represent. Major parties encompass candidates of greater diversity. In many situations the label Republican or Democrat tells a voter little. The candidate who bears it may be supported by funds from the far right, the far left, or any place in between on the political spectrum. It is less likely that a candidate of, say, the Socialist Labor Party will represent interests that cannot be discerned from the party's ideological position. The Government's interest in deterring the buying of elections and the undue influence of large contributors on officeholders also may be reduced where contributions to a minor party or an independent candidate are concerned, for it is less likely that the candidate will be victorious. But a minor party sometimes can play a significant role in an election. Even when a minor-party candidate has little or no chance of winning, he may be encouraged by major-party interests in order to divert votes from other major-party contenders. [84] We are not unmindful that the damage done by disclosure to the associational interests of the minor parties and their members and to supporters of independents could be significant. These movements are less likely to have a sound financial base and thus are more vulnerable to falloffs in contributions. In some instances fears of reprisal may deter contributions to the point where the movement cannot survive. The public interest also suffers if that result comes to pass, for there is a consequent reduction in the free circulation of ideas both within [85] and without [86] the political arena. There could well be a case, similar to those before the Court in NAACP v. Alabama and Bates, where the threat to the exercise of First Amendment rights is so serious and the state interest furthered by disclosure so insubstantial that the Act's requirements cannot be constitutionally applied. [87] But no appellant in this case has tendered record evidence of the sort proffered in NAACP v. Alabama . Instead, appellants primarily rely on the clearly articulated fears of individuals, well experienced in the political process. Brief for Appellants 173. At best they offer the testimony of several minor-party officials that one or two persons refused to make contributions because of the possibility of disclosure. [88] On this record, the substantial public interest in disclosure identified by the legislative history of this Act outweighs the harm generally alleged.