actions in terminating the contract. Doyle, 998 F.2d at 1566 (quoting Allen, 468 U.S. at 751, 104 S.Ct. at 3324). He has clearly alleged an injury caused by Defendants. Accordingly, Mr. Umbehr has standing. We turn now to the merits of his claim that his First Amendment rights have been violated. Mr. Umbehr was indisputably an independent contractor. As the district court acknowledged, there is conflicting ease law on whether those who independently contract with the government share the same degree of First Amendment protection for their speech as government employees. A number of courts have held that governments may award or terminate public contracts on the basis of political affiliation or support. See Triad Assocs., Inc. v. Chicago Hous. Auth., 892 F.2d 583 (7th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 845, 111 S.Ct. 129,
holding that independent contractor claiming termination of contract in retaliation for petition was not protected by first amendment holding that independent contractors whose contracts were terminated following a change in administration were not protected by the first amendment holding that independent contractor claiming loss of and denial of contracts because of political affiliation was not protected by first amendment holding that independent contractor claiming termination of contract because of lobbying and other political activities not protected by first amendment holding that independent contractor claiming removal from city towing rotation list because of political affiliation was not protected by first amendment