everyone who wishes to solicit contributions in Davidson County, not just those who are making fraudulent solicitations. By subjecting all charitable organizations to the rigorous application procedure with the attendant discretion the Board has in whether to grant or deny a permit, the ordinance affects substantially more speech than is necessary to achieve its interest in preventing fraud. Second, while it is possible that denying permits to applicants who have low “character” and “integrity,” who have lied on their application form, or who have engaged in fraudulent activity in the past may reduce the incidence of fraud, Defendants have provided no explanation for why laws prohibiting fraud are insufficient to achieve the same goal. Cf. Riley, 487 U.S. at 795, 800, 108 S.Ct. 2667 (<HOLDING>); Vill. of Schaumburg, 444 U.S. at 637-38, 100
holding that false arrest and false imprisonment claim were not duplicative holding that a law aimed at preventing fraud by requiring professional fundraisers to disclose the percentage of charitable contributions collected during the previous year that were actually turned over to charity is not narrowly tailored partly because a state may vigorously enforce its antifraud laws to prohibit professional fundraisers from obtaining money on false pretenses or by making false statements holding that an attorney who made false representations to a court did not violate okla rpc 33 because that rule addresses professional misconduct as an advocate for making false statements to a tribunal not false statements by a lawyer as a witness holding that defendant could be charged for making false statements to treasury officials under the tax evasion statute or the statute prohibiting false statements to government officials holding that apparel cleaners submission of false statements of their receipts a percentage of which were to be paid to the united states did not constitute false claims within the meaning of the federal false claims act