Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 792 n. 32, 98 S.Ct. 1407, 55 L.Ed.2d 707 (1978) (observing that “[i]dentification of the source of [ballot referendum] advertising may be required as a means of disclosure, so that the people will be able to evaluate the arguments to which they are being subjected”). Citizens United only confirmed the breadth of Congress’ power in this regard. See Citizens United, 130 S.Ct. at 915 (“Even if the ads only pertain to a commercial transaction, the public has an interest in knowing who is speaking about a candidate shortly before an election”); see also Doe v. Reed, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2811, 2819-22, 177 L.Ed.2d 493 (2010) (upholding disclosure requirement for petition signatories); Natn’l Org. for Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34, 70 (1st Cir.2011) . C Real Truth advances several other reasons
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that ors 1660651e 1985 was unconstitutional because it potentially reached areas of communication that would be constitutionally privileged and it incorporated a definition of obscenity that was unconstitutionally vague
B. holding that a court cannot construe claims to read an express limitation out of the claim or render it meaningless
C. holding that duration of limitation is a factor in determining whether limitation is significant
D. holding that state express advocacy definition without an electioneering communication limitation was not vague
E. holding that threat as used in the coercion definition as that definition is incorporated into section 3605s witnesstampering prohibition was not unconstitutionally vague because nature of threat was informed by the harms enumerated in the definition in that case hatred contempt and ridicule
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.