by these individuals is one that necessarily requires public disclosure of identity. Even assuming that an official proponent has a First Amendment anonymity interest, the potential burden is negligible. In a different context, the Supreme Court has expressed skepticism that an informational interest can sustain regimes that compel disclosure of the identity of an advocate at the point of contact with voters, or signatories in the initiative context. In Buckley v. Am he identity not of an advocate, but of an individual who serves as an official proponent and representative of the signers in the lawmaking process — a role akin to a candidate for office and recognized explicitly as distinct from that of an advocate under California law. See Perry, 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 499, 265 P.3d at 1017-18 (<HOLDING>). The government’s interest in alerting
holding that the proper measure of damages to repair defects for a building contract that has not been substantially performed is the contractually agreed upon measure of damages holding that where the customary measure of damages for a vendors failure or refusal to convey land was inapplicable the measure of damages must be flexible enough to vary with the necessities of the situation holding failure to raise issue of improper measure of damages in trial court waived review of complaints that proper measure of damages was not submitted to jury and that plaintiff failed to present evidence on the proper measure holding that the measure of damages of converted property is the market value at the time of conversion holding that the official proponents of an initiative measure are recognized as having a distinct role  involving both authority and responsibilities that differ from other supporters of the measure