show that sueh remote disclosure will deter the circulation of initiative petitions. To the extent the disclosure requirements burden speech, the burden must be viewed as incremental and insubstantial in light of the affidavit requirement, which also reveals the identity of initiative petition circulators. As a regulation of the electoral process with an indirect and insignificant effect on speech, the disclosure provision should be upheld so long as it advances a legitimate government interest. Colorado’s asserted interests in combating fraud and providing the public with information about petition circulation are surely sufficient to survive this level of review. These are among the interests we found to be substantial in Buckley v. Valeo. See 424 U. S. 1, 67, 68 (1976) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, it is scarcely debatable that, as a
holding that the appropriate sanction was to require the defendant to disclose the nature of the agreement with the witness holding that the government has a substantial interest in requiring candidates to disclose the sources of campaign contributions to provide the electorate with information about the interests to which a candidate is most likely to be responsive to deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption and to detect violations of the contribution limitations holding that the principal test of substantial contribution is extent of benefit to the estate holding that the right of access to government information or sources of information within the governments control is not mandated by the first or fourteenth amendments holding that even when the information is crucial to a litigants case reporters should be compelled to disclose their sources only after the litigant has shown that he has exhausted every reasonable alternative source of information