in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” Id. at 568, 88 S.Ct. at 1734. I differ from the majority as to both sides of the balance. On the one hand, I find the burden the honorarium ban imposes on appellees’ First Amendment rights lighter than the majority perceives; the weight of the government’s interest in avoiding the appearance of impropriety or corruption, I find much, much greater. A. The Employees’ Interest The majority holds, correctly, that financial disincentives on speech do burden First Amendment rights and the fact that such disincentives do not prohibit expressive activity only affects the weight of the burden. See Maj. Op. at 1273. This Court recently held as much. See Sanjour v. EPA, 984 F.2d 434, 441 (D.C.Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). I find the majority’s conclusion as to the
holding that first amendment protections apply to compelled speech as well as restrictions on speech holding that in performing the pickering balancing test the district court was proper in first assessing the value from the first amendment perspective of the employees speech recognizing that corporations have first amendment speech rights but declining to address the abstract question whether corporations have the full measure of rights that individuals enjoy under the first amendment holding that financial disincentives on speech burden first amendment rights for purposes of the pickering balance holding that the video games at issue are expressive and qualify as speech for purposes of the first amendment