a voter application and ensure the delivery of the application to the appropriate registrar. Once the voter is registered, the plaintiffs urge registered voters to east their votes in scheduled elections. The speech rights of the plaintiffs in this case seeking to influence citizens to participate in the democratic process are as strong or stronger than the plaintiffs’ rights in Meyer and Buckley. The First Amendment rights of the canvassers in Meyer and Buckley and the canvassers in this case are indistinguishable: The right to conduct their campaign without unjustified burdens “limits the number of voices who will convey [plaintiffs’] message.” Meyer, 486 U.S. at 422, 108 S.Ct. 1886; see also Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 130 S.Ct. 876, 175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court has a long line of cases
recognizing that code is speech holding that first amendment protections apply to compelled speech as well as restrictions on speech holding that federal election laws prohibiting corporations and unions from using general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as electioneering communication or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate is unconstitutional suppression of political speech holding that the plaintiffs right to political speech is fully in accord with the publics interest in free speech and association holding that speech about financial assistance and handling racial discrimination does not qualify as protected speech