municipal advisors and municipal advisor professionals are not contributing and soliciting. Although Leatherwood and Wein-gartner never clearly refer to the 2016 Amendments, there is one occasion in which Pipkin appears to refer to the 2016 Amendments. However, this reference fails to establish standing for different reasons. Pipkin states that he “expect[s] that the expanded coverage of the MSRB’s Political Contribution Rule will now cause more individuals to ,.. refrain from contributing.” Id. ¶ 10 (Pet’rs’ App’x at 313). Even assuming that “the expanded coverage of the MSRB’s Political Contribution Rule” refers to the 2016 Amendments, “[s]uch ‘some day* intentions” are precisely ■ the sort of speculation that does not establish standing. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 564, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (<HOLDING>). Rather, Pipkin must attest that the
holding that the affiants profession of an tent to return to the places they had visited beforewhere they will presumably this time be deprived of the opportunity to observe animals of the endangered speciesis simply not enough to establish standing holding that defendants had no standing where they conceded that they did not own the automobile searched and were simply passengers the owner of the car had been the driver of the vehicle at the time of the search holding that the affiants profession of an intent to return to the places they had visited before  is simply not enough because such some day intentions without any description of concrete plans or indeed any specification of when the some day will be  do not support a finding of the actual or imminent injury that our cases require emphasis in original holding that defendants failed to raise triable issue of material fact where they did not establish that the type size of the copy they submitted in opposition to summary judgment motion was identical to that of the original contract holding officers did not have a realistic opportunity to intervene because they were not present at the time of the shooting