decreased voter engagement, difficulty raising money and attracting candidates, and vote dilution — are of a different magnitude than numerous retaliatory actions that courts have found to constitute more than de minimis burdens on First Amendment rights. See, e.g., Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 269 (9th Cir. 1997) (filing of single “false [disciplinary] charge infringed ... First Amendment right[s]”); Crawford-El v. Britton, 93 F.3d 813, 826 (D.C. Cir. 1996).(“[Pecu-niary losses ... sustained in the form of the costs of shipping ... boxes and replacing clothing, though small, might well deter a person of ordinary firmness ... from speaking again.”), vacated on other grounds, 523 U.S. 574, 118 S.Ct. 1584, 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998); Sloman v. Tadlock, 21 F.3d 1462, 1470 (9th Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>); see also Anderson, 460 U.S. at 792, 103 S.Ct.
holding that a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen holding that evidence that the petitioner had a political opinion that he expressed it to his persecutors and that they threatened him only after he expressed his opinion compelled the conclusion that the threats were connected to his political opinion and not only to his failure to provide money in response to demands from the persecutors that predated his expression of his political opinion holding that police may approach citizen and ask that he roll down the window as long as the officers do not detain the citizen or create the impression that the citizen may not leave holding that factfinder could reasonably conclude that a police officers decisions to issue a citation and warnings to a citizen express ing his political beliefs chilled the political expression of the citizen and his group holding that applicant failed to establish imputed political opinion where he presented no evidence that an antigovernmental guerilla group imputed his fathers political beliefs to him