Opinion ID: 835101
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: First Amendment: Classification of speakers

Text: Plaintiffs also challenge the gift and entertainment restrictions under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Their theory is that the gift and entertainment restrictions apply unevenly, and therefore unconstitutionally, because they suppress the federal speech rights of lobbyists ( i.e., persons with a legislative or administrative interest) but not others. We have already concluded that the receipt of gift and entertainment restrictions do not abridge the right of free expression under Oregon's constitution because, as a general matter, they regulate nonexpressive conduct, not expression. Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that the United States Supreme Court would construe and apply the First Amendment to those restrictions, and yet reach a different conclusion under federal law. We are not aware of any pertinent federal authority that would compel a different answer. Because plaintiffs have not established that the receipt of gift and entertainment restrictions deny a First Amendment right, their contentions regarding the alleged discriminatory application of those restrictions to different classifications of persons are unavailing.