With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 40-1.) I will discuss Gessler in more detail below, but its gist was to invalidate a rulemaking in which the Secretary sought to raise the contribution threshold for article XXVIII “issue committee” status from $200 to $5,000 in response to the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Sampson v. Buescher, 625 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir.2010). In Sampson, the Tenth Circuit held unconstitutional Colorado’s campaign finance disclosure requirements as applied to a single ballot-issue committee of neighbors that had spent $1,000 to challenge an annexation initiative. The Court applied “exacting scrutiny” to the case, invalidating Colorado’s disclosure requirements on grounds the burdens imposed could not be justified by the public’s informational interest in how the group made and spent its money. Id. at 1261 (<HOLDING>). The Court specifically declined, however, to

A: holding governments informational interest was minimal if not nonexistent in light of the small size of the contributions
B: holding that even if a particular privacy interest is minor nondisclosure remains justified where  the public interest in disclosure is virtually nonexistent
C: holding that an informational interest is not sufficiently important to sustain compelled disclosure of advocates identities during the circulation period
D: holding that bargaining unit employees have some nontrivial privacy interest in nondisclosure of their home addresses under the freedom of information act and concluding that that interest substantially outweighed the virtually nonexistent public interest in disclosure under foia and the privacy act not the nlra
A.