Reply #61: I'm glad you acknowledge the risk here OTOH, that 's big of you

[Land Shark]

the specific answers to your questions involve a higher level course for which you've not accomplished the prerequisites, dear Professor.

The essence of lawyering is predicting what judges and courts will do.

Phillip&Morris v Reilly struck down the disclosure of trade secret tobacco ingredients on the grounds that it would be an unconstitutional taking. So, from that standpoing alone, you'd have perhaps a choice: the disclosure of source code could be struck down as unconstitutional taking, or it could be upheld with subsequent claims for damages. In either case, you hand the vendors a "big case", the question is whether it's one for damages or not. If OTOH is right that there's more point to the disclosure of the source code in elections than there is to disclosure of tobacco ingredients, that reality would suggest upholding HR 550 and allowing a claim for damages to proceed. But, as hinted earlier, it's more complicated than just that.