look for guidance from Davis v. Federal Election Commission, — U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 2759, 171 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008), in deciding plaintiffs’ discrimination claim in Count One. Davis involved an entirely different claim: the Davis plaintiffs challenged the so-called “Millionaire’s Amendment,” which imposed a “penalty”- — -in the form of a disadvantageous “asymmetrical regulatory scheme” — on candidates for Congress who spent large amounts of their own money on their campaigns. Id. at 2766, 2771. Davis accordingly addressed a law that burdened the “fundamental” First Amendment right to spend one’s own money on one’s own campaign. See id. at 2771 (“[W]e agree with Davis that this scheme impermissibly burdens his First Amendment right to spend his own money for campaign speech.”); see also id. (<HOLDING>). Putting aside the CEP’s trigger provisions,
holding that the right to vote is fundamental holding that the right to drive is not a fundamental right recognizing the fundamental nature of the right to spend personal funds for campaign speech holding right to be fundamental recognizing a fundamental right to marry