Disclosure of contributions minimizes the potential for abuse of the campaign finance system. Disclosure requirements are in part “justified based on a governmental interest in ‘providing the electorate with information’ about the sources of election-related spending.” Citizens United, 558 U.S., at 367, 130 S. Ct. 876, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (quoting Buckley, supra, at 66, 96 S. Ct. 612, 46 L. Ed. 2d 659). They may also “deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity.” Id., at 67, 96 S. Ct. 612, 46 L. Ed. 2d 659. Disclosure requirements burden speech, but-unlike the aggregate limits-they do not impose a ceiling on speech. Citizens United, supra, at 366, 130 S. Ct. 876, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753; but see McConnell, supra, at 275-277, 124 S. Ct. 619, 157 L. Ed. 2d 491 (opinion of Thomas, J.). For that reason, disclosure often represents a less restrictive alternative to flat bans on certain types or quantities of speech. See, e.g., Federal Election Comm’n v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238, 262, 107 S. Ct. 616, 93 L. Ed. 2d 539 (1986).
With ...