prohibits lobbyists from serving as officers or treasurer of certain political committees and, thus, implicates the protections of the First Amendment. Consequently, the Court must examine what, if any, compelling state interest underlies the statute. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that governments have a legitimate interest in regulating lobbyists. See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 356 n. 20, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 1523 n. 20, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995) (“The activities of lobbyists who have direct access to elected representatives, if undisclosed, may well present the appearance of corruption.”). In fact, courts have upheld laws regulating and monitoring the activities of lobbyists. See, e.g., United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 74 S.Ct. 808, 98 L.Ed. 989, (1954) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court also has recognized that
holding the best interest of the child standard does not violate federal constitutional principles holding that resigntorun provision of maine judicial code of conduct does not violate the guarantees of equal protection freedom of speech or freedom of association in either the maine or united states constitutions holding that a nocontact order did not violate the right to freedom of association holding that school officials may not limit the first amendment rights of students and teachers to freedom of speech and expression holding that federal lobbying act does not violate lobbyists constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and petitioning the government