initiative process.” Doe, 130 S.Ct. at 2819 (citations and quotations omitted). Finally, disclosure requirements may permit accurate record-keeping. “[Djisclo-sure requirements are an essential means of gathering the data necessary to detect violations of ... contribution limitations.” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 68, 96 S.Ct. 612. Such records further enhance the public’s future associational rights by offering voters information about which policies those seeking their vote have previously endorsed. Both the Supreme Court and our court have rejected facial challenges to contribution disclosure requirements in several cases, holding that these substantial interests outweigh the modest burdens that the challenged disclosures impose on First Amendment rights. See, e.g., Doe, 130 S.Ct. at 2820 (<HOLDING>); Family PAC, 685 F.3d at 805-11; Human Life of
holding in conflict of laws analysis that it was proper to apply the law of the state of washington as to the measure of damages which involved the substantive rights of the parties holding that federal law applies because judicial estoppel relates to protection of the integrity of the federal judicial process holding that states interest in preserving integrity of sport of horse racing justifies lack of predeprivation hearing holding a state has a substantial interest in regulating the practice of law within the state holding that a state law authorizing private parties to obtain copies of referendum petitions is substantially related to the important interest of preserving the integrity of the electoral process