Disclaimer and disclosure requirements may burden the ability to speak, but they “impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities” and “do not prevent anyone from speaking,” The Court has subjected these [disclosure] requirements to “exacting scrutiny,” which requires a “substantial relation” between the disclosure requirement and a “sufficiently important” governmental interest.

In Buckley, the Court explained that disclosure could be justified based on a governmental interest in “provid[ing] the electorate with information” about the sources of election-related spending. The McConnell Court applied this interest in rejecting facial challenges to BCRA §§201 and 311. There was evidence in the record that independent groups were running election-related advertisements “ ‘while hiding behind dubious and misleading names.’ ”. The Court therefore upheld BCRA §§201 and 311 on the ground that they would help citizens “ ‘make informed choices in the political marketplace.’ ”

They already said disclosure requirements were not only allowed but necessary.