that at least some Executive Branch employees below GS-16 are financially dependent on the income they have received for their expressive activity. See, e.g., Affidavit of John C. Shelton If 8, at 2 (stating that “based on my current financial situation, I will not be able to continue making payments on my mortgage if I have to give up the income from my writing”). However, to the extent that appellees may be financially dependent on honoraria, the weight of the government interest in avoiding the appearance of impropriety or corruption is greatly bolstered. See infra p. 1292. In view of the foregoing, the honorarium ban only has a moderate impact on appel-lees’ First Amendment rights. See generally Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507, 100 S.Ct. 763, 62 L.Ed.2d 704 (1980) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). To the extent the majority accords the
recognizing that the first amendment protects the expressive activities associated with the voterregistration process holding that the video games at issue are expressive and qualify as speech for purposes of the first amendment holding that raising chickens is not an expressive act for the purposes of the first amendment holding that where the first amendment does not protect a certain activity there can be no first amendment right of association to engage in that activity holding that the central intelligence agency could consistent with the first amendment impose a constructive trust denying a former employee the proceeds from expressive activity that harmed a substantial government interest