BUCKLEY v. VALEO Per Curiam 1 of the sort we faced in 18 U. S. C. § 608 (e) (1) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). Although the phrase, "for the purpose of... influencing" an election or nomination, differs from the language used in § 608 (e) (1), it shares the same potential for encompassing both issue discussion and advocacy The general requirement that of a political result.' "political committees" and candidates disclose their expenditures could raise similar vagueness problems, for "political committee" is defined only in terms of amount of annual "contributions" and "expenditures," '05 and could be interpreted to reach groups engaged purely in issue discussion. The lower courts have construed the To fulfill words "political committee" more narrowly. "' the purposes of the Act they need only encompass organizations that are under the control of a candidate or the major purpose of which is the nomination or election of a candidate. Expenditures of candidates and of "political committees" so construed can be assumed to fall within the core area sought to be addressed by Congress. They are, by definition, campaign related. But when the maker of the expenditure is not within these categories-when it is an individual other than a candidate or a group other than a "political commitSee Part I-C-, supra. 431 (d) defines "political committee" as "any committee, club, association, or other group of persons which receives contributions or makes expenditures during a calendar year in an aggregate amount exceeding $1,000." 106 At least two lower courts, seeking to avoid questions of unconstitutionality, have construed the disclosure requirements imposed on "political committees" by § 434 (a) to be nonapplicable to nonpartisan organizations. United States v. National Comm. for Impeachment, 469 F. 2d, at 1139-1142; American Civil Liberties Union v. Jennings, 366 F. Supp., at 1055-1057. See also 171 U. S. App. D. C., at 214 n. 112, 519 F. 2d, at 863 n. 112. 104 105 Section