WHEREFORE,
As the SCotUS determined that enforcement of 2 U.S.C. § 441b would require undue, perhaps unconstitutional, determination of a speaking party's status, and contentious and inefficient deliberation over which entities may be entitled to common-carrier, "free press," or impartial publisher protections and which may be penalized for contributing to political speech,
And as the SCotUS upheld the disclaimer and disclosure requirements of the law which permit determining the origin and financial backing of corporate speech,
WE respectfully request the administration address the issue through initiatives increasing the reach, power, and opportunity for individual speech, rather than creating separate classes of entities or individuals subject to differing 1st amendment protections.