by pigeonholing the ads as “government speech.” The question remains, however, whether the compelled speech does indeed violate appellants’ free speech rights, an analysis that is governed by the Supreme Court’s compelled speech line of cases, including Abood, Keller, Glickman, and United Foods. 3. Compelled Speech Appellants rely on the string of cases, beginning with Abood, concerning compelled contributions to speech, and assert that there exists the fundamental principle that, under the First Amendment, a discrete group should not be specifically taxed to fund speech with which they disagree. Indeed, this proffered principle provides a coherent picture of the puzzle with which courts have been struggling. See, e.g., Summit v. Medical Ctr. of Al. v. Riley, 284 F.Supp.2d 1350, 1360 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added); United States v. Frame, 885
holding that states imposition of a direct fee assessment on a limited class of citizens abortion providers  and using the revenue to advance speech in support of the states favored policy position on abortion intruded on abortion providers free speech rights holding that campaign money laundering was in furtherance of political speech but an invalid exercise of free speech rights because it was illegal holding that first amendment protections apply to compelled speech as well as restrictions on speech holding that the plaintiffs right to political speech is fully in accord with the publics interest in free speech and association recognizing that code is speech