statute requiring every petition circulator to wear a badge bearing the circulator’s name, because the public’s informational interest in identifying the advocate was insufficiently important to justify chilling political speech and potentially to subject circulators to harassment at the apex of face-to-face political advocacy. Similarly, in McIntyre, the Supreme Court struck down an Ohio ban on handbills that failed to identify the name of the advocate, because the public’s informational interest in knowing the identity of the advocate “means nothing more than the provision of additional information that may either buttress or undermine the argument in a document.” 514 U.S. at 348, 115 S.Ct. 1511. Beyond expressing concerns over fear of harassment that 1132, 1140 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). But this doctrine does not apply here for two
holding that where an authorized disclosure is voluntarily made to a nonfederal party whether or not that disclosure is denominated confidential the government waives any claim that the information is exempt from disclosure under the deliberative process privilege holding governments informational interest was minimal if not nonexistent in light of the small size of the contributions holding that an informational interest in allowing the public to evaluate the advocacy document is not sufficiently important to sustain compelled disclosure of an advocates identity on the document itself holding that the disclosure is a public disclosure within the meaning of the fca if the the prior public disclosure  contained enough information to enable the government to pursue an investigation against the defendant holding that an informational interest is not sufficiently important to sustain compelled disclosure of advocates identities during the circulation period