Cite as: 558 U. S. ____ (2010) 5 Opinion of THOMAS, J. Ante, at 51 (internal quotation marks and citations omit­ ted). Of course they do. Disclaimer and disclosure re­ quirements enable private citizens and elected officials to implement political strategies specifically calculated to curtail campaign-related activity and prevent the lawful, peaceful exercise of First Amendment rights. The Court nevertheless insists that as-applied chal­ lenges to disclosure requirements will suffice to vindicate those speech rights, as long as potential plaintiffs can “show a reasonable probability that disclosure . . . will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties.” Ante, at 52 (internal quotation marks omitted). But the Court’s opin­ ion itself proves the irony in this compromise. In correctly explaining why it must address the facial constitutionality of §203, see ante, at 5–20, the Court recognizes that “[t]he First Amendment does not permit laws that force speakers to . . . seek declaratory rulings before discussing the most salient political issues of our day,” ante, at 7; that as­ applied challenges to §203 “would require substantial litigation over an extended time” and result in an “inter­ pretive process [that] itself would create an inevitable, pervasive, and serious risk of chilling protected speech pending the drawing of fine distinctions that, in the end, would themselves be questionable,” ante, at 9–10; that “a court would be remiss in performing its duties were it to accept an unsound principle merely to avoid the necessity of making a broader ruling,” ante, at 12; and that avoiding a facial challenge to §203 “would prolong the substantial, nation-wide chilling effect” that §203 causes, ante, at 16. This logic, of course, applies equally to as-applied chal­ lenges to §§201 and 311. Irony aside, the Court’s promise that as-applied chal­ lenges will adequately protect speech is a hollow assur­ ance. Now more than ever, §§201 and 311 will chill pro­ tected speech because—as California voters can attest—