the reporting of mere financial matters. See id. at 68-72 (substantial interest in disclosure of campaign contribution outweighed generally alleged harm; while disclosure may even expose contributors to harassment and retaliation, factual showing required to invalidate disclosure requirement). The mere fact that First Amendment rights are implicated does not mean those rights are burdened. Plaintiffs imagine various scenarios where the legitimate reach of the Act may be tenuous, and where expenditures bear little correlation to the state’s interest in disclosure. Yet, a law will not be declared unconstitutional on its face on the basis that it might be unconstitutionally enforced under speculative circumstances. Cf. State v. Cantrell, 151 Vt. 130, 133-34, 558 A.2d 639, 641-42 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Laws are to be interpreted in a reasonable
recognizing in criminal case exception to standing rules where statute involving first amendment freedoms is challenged on vagueness grounds holding a contribution restriction for minors was invalid because the statute was not closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of first amendment freedoms holding that where first amendment freedoms are not infringed by the statute a vagueness claim must be evaluated as the statute is applied to the facts of the case holding that there is a qualified first amendment right of access to proceedings and documents relating to disqualification of a judge in a criminal case and to conflicts of interest between attorneys in a criminal case recognizing retaliation involving promotion as adverse employment actions under the first amendment