OCTOBER TERM, 1975 Per Curiam 424 U. S. best they offer the testimony of several minor-party officials that one or two persons refused to make contributions because of the possibility of disclosure. 8 On this record, the substantial public interest in disclosure identified by the legislative history of this Act outweighs the harm generally alleged. 2. Blanket Exemption Appellants agree that "the record here does not reflect the kind of focused and insistent harassment of contributors and members that existed in the NAACP cases." Ibid. They argue, however, that a blanket exemption for minor parties is necessary lest irreparable injury be done before the required evidence can be gathered. Those parties that would be sufficiently "minor" to be exempted from the requirements of § 434 could be defined, appellants suggest, along the lines used for public-financing purposes, see Part III-A, infra, as those who received less than 25% of the vote in past elections. Appellants do not argue that this line is consti-tutionally required. They suggest as an alternative defining "minor parties" as those that do not qualify for automatic ballot access under state law. Presumably, other criteria, such as current political strength (measured by polls or petition), age, or degree of organization, could also be used. s9 The difficulty with these suggestions is that they reflect only a party's past or present political strength and 88 For example, a campaign worker who had solicited campaign funds for the Libertarian Party in New York testified that two persons solicited in a Party campaign "refused to contribute because they were unwilling for their names to be disclosed or published." None of the appellants offers stronger evidence of threats or harassment. 89 These criteria were suggested in an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part from the decision below. 171 U. S. App. ID. C., at 258 n. 1, 519 F. 2d, at 907 n. 1 (Bazelon, C. J.).