Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., District Judge. Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“Plaintiffs’ Motion”), Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defendants’ Motion”) and Defendants’ Motion to Strike (“Motion to Strike”). These matters came on for hearing before the Court at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 20, 2011. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Defendants’ Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot. BACKGROUND A. Factual History On November 4, 2008, the citizens of California adopted a ballot measure, Proposition 8, that changed the California Constitution such that marriage would thereafter exist only “between a man and a woman.” Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts (“SSUF”), ¶ 29; Cal. Const, art. 1, § 7.5. Plaintiffs ProtectMarriage and NOM-California were primarily formed ballot committees established under California’s Political Reform Act of 1974, Cal. Gov.Code § 81000 et seq. (“PRA”). Their specific purpose was to specifically support the passage of Proposition 8. SSUF, ¶¶ 1-2. Plaintiff John Doe # 1 supported Proposition 8 and is considered a “committee” under the PRA because he contributed in excess of $10,000 to a committee that itself supported Proposition 8. Id., ¶ 3. In support of the Proposition 8 campaign, such committees raised in excess of $42 million from more than 46,000 individual contributors. See Declaration of Lynda Cassady, ¶ 15 and its attached chart. Plaintiff National Organization for Marriage California PAC (“NOM-California PAC”), to the contrary, was formed post-election to raise and spend money on ballot initiatives and candidates relating to the issue of marriage. SSUF, ¶ 4. California’s PRA requires committees such as Plaintiffs to report certain information regarding their contributors. Specifically, Plaintiffs are required to file semiannual reports including the name, street address, occupation, name of employer, (if self-employed, the name of the business), as well as the date and amount received during the period covered by the statement of anyone who contributes more than $100 to them, both during and after active campaigns. Cal. Gov.Code §§ 84200, 84211(f). This information is then available, inter alia, on the website of the California Secretary of State. Plaintiffs allege that, as a consequence of their support of Proposition 8, their contributors have been subjected to threats of violence, harassment and reprisals. Plaintiffs further allege that the PRA’s $100 reporting threshold is unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further maintain that the PRA’s post-election reporting requirements and the failure to purge reports post-election are facially unconstitutional as well. In support of their first claim, Plaintiffs submitted 58 John Doe Declarations (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1). The first nine of those declarations were drafted in January 2009, and the rest were prepared prior to June 3, 2009. Plaintiffs have further provided a variety of media accounts, videos and articles pulled from various internet sources (Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 3-4). Plaintiffs’ John Doe declarations document the following incidents that Plaintiffs allege constitute “threats, harassments and reprisals” sufficient to warrant exempting from disclosure the names of Plaintiffs’ contributors: • Establishments owned by or employing persons who contributed to or otherwise publicly supported Proposition 8 were the subjects of proposed boycotts. Declarations of John Doe # 1, # 53. • Establishments whose owners supported or contributed to Proposition 8 were subject to picketing or protests. Declaration of John Doe # 1. • A protest took place at a declarant’s in-home Proposition 8 political rally. Declaration of John Doe # 4. • Unsolicited phone calls, emails and letters voicing disagreement with the positions of those contributing to or supporting Proposition 8 were received by supporters of Proposition 8. Declarations of John Doe # 1, #4-10, #17, #19, #22-23, #28-30, # 51-54, # 56. • Flyers were circulated denouncing contributors’ support of Proposition 8. Declaration of John Doe # 2. • “Yes on 8” bumper stickers and yard signs were vandalized or stolen. In at least one instance, a sign was used to break a church window. Declarations of John Does # 3, # 7-8, # 13-14, #16, #18, #22, #24, #26, # 31, # 33-48, # 50, # 55-58. • Cars of ‘Tes on 8” supporters were keyed or vandalized (ie., windows were smashed or vehicles were egged and floured) and at least one supporter’s home was egged and floured. Declarations of John Doe, # 11-14. • Individuals at “Yes on 8” sign waving events, protests or flyer distribution events encountered negative responses (including individuals shouting obscenities and arguing with sign-waivers, individuals blocking “Yes on 8” signs with “No on 8” signs, and in one instance, an individual throwing an object at a sign waver). Declarations of John Doe # 13, # 16, # 25, # 26. • Conflicts arose with friends, family or neighbors. Declarations of John Doe # 13, # 15, # 18, # 20-21, # 49. • Individuals or businesses supporting Proposition 8 had negative reviews posted on a variety of websites. Declarations of John Doe # 20, # 27, # 32, # 51. Most of the incidents alleged above were responses to public shows of support the declarants had made in favor of Proposition 8. See, e.g., Deck of John Doe #4 (protest held outside the entrance to declarant’s gated community when declarant held a fundraiser in support of Proposition 8 at his home); Deck of John Doe # 8 (declarant “attended numerous rallies, three press conferences, and spoke at a number of churches ... [,] also participated on panel discussions” and “attended an election night gathering at a hotel ... with other supporters of Proposition 8” where the supporter’s picture was taken and eventually published); Deck Of John Doe # 9 (photograph of individual at election night gathering prompted receipt of unsolicited messages on MySpace and Face-book accounts, emails and phone calls); Deck of John Doe #20 (after seeing a yard sign supporting Proposition 8 in the yard of a shop owner, two neighbors advised declarant they would no longer frequent his store). Although immaterial to the Court’s decision, it is not at all clear from some of the declarations whether the alleged incidents were actually connected to a particular declarant’s support of Proposition 8. See, e.g., Deck Of John Doe # 11 (individual maintaining “Yes on 8” yard signs on her lawn and a bumper sticker on her car had her car window smashed); Deck of John Doe # 13 (believes car was keyed in retaliation for posting ‘Tes on 8” bumper stickers); Deck of John Doe # 23 (believes the statue of Mary, Mother of Jesus, at his church was painted orange in connection with Proposition 8). Plaintiffs’ remaining evidence, Exhibits 3 and 4, is comprised of a collection of online media, including YouTube videos, blogs, court filings in other cases, and numerous articles. Because the incidents reported within these Exhibits are highly repetitive, and perhaps deceptively overwhelming, they are catalogued by type of occurrence, rather than by exhibit number, here. • Yard sign theft and vandalism. First, as with their Doe declarations, Plaintiffs’ evidence recounts a variety of incidences of yard-sign theft and vandalism. In some instances church windows were broken or churches were spray-painted with “No on 8” messages. One church was egged and toilet-papered. Another had adhesive poured on a doormat, keypad and window. A neighborhood in San Bernardino was targeted by vandals who spray-painted cars, fences, garages and “Yes on 8” signs. Vandals also spray-painted residential and commercial buildings in Fullerton, and a church in San Francisco was spray-painted with swastikas and angry Proposition 8 messages. Likewise, in October, 2008, someone spray-painted “No on 8” on a San Jose couple’s car and garage and on their neighbor’s garage. Also in San Jose, someone painted an SUV with “Bigots Live Here” and an arrow pointing to a house that had a “Yes on 8” sign on the lawn. Some of the articles make mention that law enforcement responded and, in some instances, was even able to make arrests. Exhs. 4-7, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4—45, 4-46, 4-50. • Disclosure lists. Plaintiffs also provide documentation of a number of websites that, in approximately November 2008, began publishing the names of individuals and businesses that contributed to Proposition 8. Some of Plaintiffs’s evidence extends beyond Proposition 8 to websites reporting the names of supporters of similar issues in other states. Exhs. 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-21, 4-28, 4-83, 4-84, 4-98, 4-99, 4-103, 4-105, 4-106, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 4-113, 4-114,4-128, 4-138, 4-139, 4-142, 4-152, 4-153, 4-154. • Protests and rallies. In addition, Plaintiffs provide evidence of protests and rallies undertaken in approximately November 2008. For example, a small group staged a peaceful “kiss-in” near the Mormon temple in Salt Lake City. Other protests had to be broken up by law enforcement and some protesters were arrested. Exh. 3-3, 3-8, 3-9, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-120. • Death threats. Plaintiffs allege that, after participating in a rally in favor of Proposition 8 in front of City Hall, Fresno, California mayor Alan Autry and a local pastor received death threats. The pastor’s church and house were also purportedly egged. According to Plaintiffs’s evidence, police promptly investigated those threats and the pastor acknowledged he was confident in the investigation. Mayor Autry made clear that supporters of Proposition 8 should not “blame the gay and lesbian community” and that he believed “[m]ost of the opponents of Prop 8 and the vast, vast, majority of the gay community would condemn this type of thing.” See, Exhs. 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-34, 4r4L • Bash Back. Plaintiffs’ evidence also repeatedly documents the actions taken by radical gay activist group ' “Bash Back.” That organization allegedly interrupted services at a Michigan church and, among other things, arranged for two women to kiss in front of the pastor. The incident was investigated and the offenders later agreed in federal court to entry of a permanent injunction preventing them from invading churches anywhere in the country. Violators of that injunction could be held in contempt of court and be subject to a $10,000 fíne. In addition, a Washington Bash Back chapter also purportedly glued door locks and spray-painted messages on a Mormon church. Finally, the same group appears to have targeted a conference in Washington via an anonymous online post. Exhs. 3-5, 3- 6, 4-7, 4-13, 4-16, 4-17, 4-34, 4-42, 4- 43, 4-53, 4-54, 4-82. • Disruption of a prayer walk. In addition, Plaintiffs include several reports of a prayer walk by a group that met every Friday night in San Francisco’s Castro District, which has a large gay community, to try to convert gay and lesbian individuals to a “straight lifestyle.” During a November protest, a crowd convened and began shouting lewd remarks at the marchers, pushing them and throwing hot coffee, soda and alcohol at them. One man is alleged to have hit a marcher on the head with her own Bible before pushing her to the ground and kicking her. Another marcher reported that someone tried to pull his pants down. Law enforcement intervened and escorted the marchers back to their van. Exhs. 3-1, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-34. • Physical assaults. A sixty-nine year old woman at a November 2008 Proposition 8 rally in Palm Springs, California was pushed and spit on. Law enforcement convinced her to press charges against the attackers. Likewise, a supporter of Proposition 8 was waiting to distribute yard signs outside of a Modesto church when someone absconded with approximately 75 signs. The Proposition 8 supporter gave chase, was allegedly punched in the face and received 16 stitches. Detectives responded and investigated the incident. Exhs. 4-7, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-34. Much of Plaintiffs’ remaining evidence goes to alleged boycotts and “economic reprisals.” By way of example: • The chair of the 2012 U.S. Olympic team allegedly stepped down after controversy emerged over his opposition to gay marriage. Exhs. 4-18, 4-144, 4-145, 4-146. • Negative reviews of a Sacramento ice cream parlor were posted online after it was disclosed that the company supported Proposition 8. The parlor was later the target of protesters giving out free rainbow sherbert. Exhs. 4-27, 4-120, 4-130. • The manager of an El Coyote restaurant, who was also the daughter of the owners, left town after her $100 contribution to Yes on 8 led protesters to target the restaurant. Protests have since faded and the manager said she has received calls and other shows of support. Exhs. 4-34, 4-58, 4-77, 4-117, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 4-127, 4-129, 4-133, 4-139. • Despite some similar shows of support in his favor, the artistic director of Sacramento’s California Musical Theater resigned after opponents to Proposition 8 discovered he had donated $1000 to the Yes on 8 campaign. Exhs. 4-34, 4-58, 4-77, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-121, 4-124, 4-129, 4-142, 4-154. • The director of the Los Angeles Film Festival also resigned under alleged pressure from gay-rights groups after his $1500 contribution to ‘Tes on 8” was publicized. Though the festival board initially tried to block his resignation, the director eventually did tender his resignation when pressure continued. Exhs. 4-34, 4-58, 4-116, 4-117, 4-122. • A Palo Alto dentist featured on a boycott website as a result of his $1000 contribution to the “Yes on 8” campaign claims he consequently lost two patients. Exhs. 4-67, 4-117, 4-154. • An artist who had captured images from New York’s gay pride parade was the subject of verbal retaliation and an article condemning her contribution to Proposition 8. Exhs. 4-96. • A movie theater chain, a Ventura County health food store, a San Diego hotelier, a self-storage company, and a Utah-based car dealer were all boycotted after their or their employees’ contributions to Proposition 8 were publicized. Exhs. 4-111, 4-116, 4-117, 4-123, 4-129, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 4-134, 4-136, 4-141. Plaintiffs also cite to evidence purportedly documenting Proposition 8-related backlash directed at the Mormon church primarily in October and November of 2008. For example: • Two Mormon Temples (and a Knights of Columbus printing plant) received envelopes containing a white, powdery substance. Plaintiffs presume these incidents were connected to Proposition 8, though their evidence does not indicate a connection. Regardless, the FBI investigated the incidents and determined the powder was not a biological agent or toxin. Exhs. 4-34, 4-52, 4-67, 4-75, 4-76, 4-79, 4-92. • Several churches were also spray-painted with graffiti or otherwise vandalized. Police in at least one town investigated the vandalism as a hate crime potentially linked to Proposition 8, though police in another town refused to characterize the vandalism as the work of opponents to Proposition 8. Exhs. 4-7, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-51, 4-52, 4-73, 4-90, 4-91. • Other groups or individuals reported the Mormon church to California’s Fair Elections Commission for failing to report contributions to the ‘Tes on 8” campaign. Similarly, websites were initiated encouraging people to petition to have the tax exempt status of the Mormon church revoked. Exhs. 4-14, 4-15, 4-19, 4-61, 4-62, 4-107. • During the campaign, same-sex marriage advocates also allegedly produced a commercial depicting Mormon missionaries destroying the marriage license of a gay couple. Exhs. 3-7, 4-59, 4-63. • Fires were set at Mormon churches in Washington, Utah and Colorado, and a man was prevented from starting a fire at a Los Angeles Temple. Some of the articles speculatively linked the acts or arson to Proposition 8, and in each of instance, authorities undertook an investigation into the crimes. Exhs. 4-79, 4-80, 4-85, 4-86, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89. • Some protests were directed specifically at the Mormon church. Exhs. 3- 8, 3-9, 4-60, 4-68, 4-73, 4-75, 4-80, 4- 120. • Comedian Margaret Cho wrote and performed a song called “Fuck You Mormons” directed at the Mormon Church and its support of Proposition 8. Exh. 3-12. Finally, Plaintiffs catalog a variety of other miscellaneous events they believe are relevant as well. For example: • Miss California suffered backlash after stating at the Miss USA pageant that she believed marriage should exist between a man and a woman. Exh. 4-112, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 4-151. • A law firm entertaining an agreement with Republicans to defend the federal same-sex marriage ban, withdrew from the agreement after drawing fire from gay-rights groups. Exhs. 4-18, 4-135, 4-155, 4-156, 4-157. • A New York state senator purportedly received death threats due to his opposition to same-sex marriage. Exh. 18. • Apple, Inc., allegedly withdrew two iPhone apps from its app Store after receiving complaints from gay-rights supporters. Exh. 18. • Neighbors engaged in a fist-fight when one attempted to steal and replace the other’s yard sign. Exh. 4-34. • A man was attacked and bitten by a dog while trying to prevent theft of a “Yes on 8” sign. Exh. 4-34. • Cars bearing “Yes on 8” bumper stickers were keyed. Exh. 4-35. • A ‘Yes on 8” table set up in the quad at the University of California, Davis, was hit with water balloons, and students yelled “you teach hate” at those manning the table. Exh. 4-35. • Individuals left comments, sometimes characterized as “inciting and directly threatening violence” against supporters of Proposition 8 on a variety of blogs and websites. Exh. 4-56, 4-57. • The parent of a Galt High School student alleges his son was harassed by a teacher for his stance supporting Proposition 8. Exh. 4-102. B. Procedural History In light of the above alleged acts, and because they were statutorily required to file semiannual reports on January 31, 2009, Plaintiffs initiated this action against Defendants on January 7, 2009. Plaintiffs have amended their Complaint several times, resulting in the now operative Third Amended Complaint. On January 9, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, raising essentially the same arguments they raise in their current Motion, which this Court denied by formal order on January 30, 2009. At the same time, Plaintiffs also requested a Protective Order, which the Court granted. That Protective Order remains in place to date and permits the parties to redact personal information from filings not under seal. The Protective Order also grants the parties leave to file reference lists pursuant to FRCP 5.2(g). Plaintiffs did not appeal this Court’s Order Denying Preliminary Injunction, nor did they seek, from either this Court or from the Ninth Circuit, a stay of that decision. On August 25, 2011, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. Defendants, with two exceptions, filed a Cross-Motion and Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion on September 15, 2011. At the same time, Defendants moved to strike a large portion of Plaintiffs’ evidence. Plaintiffs filed a Reply as to their own Motion and Oppositions to Defendants’ Motions on September 29, 2011. Defendants filed a Reply to both their Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defendants’ Reply”) and their Motion to Strike on October 13, 2011. STANDARD The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary judgment when “materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations ..., admissions interrogatory answers, or other materials” “show[ ] that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a), (c). One of the principal purposes of Rule 56 is to dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Rule 56 also allows a court to grant summary adjudication on part of a claim or defense. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) (“A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense-the part of each claim or defense-on which summary judgment is sought.”); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Madan, 889 F.Supp. 374, 378-79 (C.D.Cal.1995); France Stone Co., Inc. v. Charter Township of Monroe, 790 F.Supp. 707, 710 (E.D.Mich.1992). The standard that applies to a motion for summary adjudication is the same as that which applies to a motion for summary judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a), 56(c); Mora v. Chem-Tronics, 16 F.Supp.2d 1192, 1200 (S.D.Cal.1998). A party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file together with the affidavits, if any,” which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (quoting Rule 56(c)). If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); First Nat’l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968). In attempting to establish the existence of this factual dispute, the opposing party must tender evidence of specific facts in the form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery material, in support of its contention that the dispute exists. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). The opposing party must demonstrate that the fact in contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law, and that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Owens v. Local No. 169, Assoc. of Western Pulp and Paper Workers, 971 F.2d 347, 355 (9th Cir.1992). Stated another way, “before the evidence is left to the jury, there is a preliminary question for the judge, not whether there is literally no evidence, but whether there is any upon which a jury could properly proceed to find a verdict for the party producing it, upon whom the onus of proof is imposed.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (quoting Schuylkill and Dauphin Improvement Co. v. Munson, 81 U.S. 442, 448, 14 Wall. 442, 20 L.Ed. 867 (1871)). As the Supreme Court explained, “[w]hen the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.... Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.’ ” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348. In resolving a summary judgment motion, the evidence of the opposing party is to be believed, and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be drawn in favor of the opposing party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is the opposing party’s obligation to produce a factual predicate from which the inference may be drawn. Richards v. Nielsen Freight Lines, 602 F.Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E.D.Cal.1985), aff'd, 810 F.2d 898 (9th Cir.1987). ANALYSIS Plaintiffs’ basic arguments in support of their Motion are as follows: 1) California’s campaign contribution disclosure requirements are unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs because there is a reasonable probability that such exposure will lead to threats, harassment and reprisals; 2) the $100 reporting threshold is unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs, because the threshold cannot survive the requisite scrutiny and because disclosure will result in the above-described threats; and 3) post-election public ballot-measure reporting and the failure to purge public disclosures post-election are unconstitutional. Defendants counter that: 1) Plaintiffs have not shown a reasonable probability that an ordinary contributor to Plaintiffs’ will face threats, harassment or reprisals; 2) the State has an important interest in disclosure that outweighs the minimal burden imposed on Plaintiffs; and 3) post-election disclosure requirements and the $100 threshold survive exacting scrutiny. These are essentially the same arguments first brought before the Court almost three years ago on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. There, the Court held that: 1) the State had a compelling informational interest in the disclosure of contributors to ballot-initiative campaigns; 2) the $100 reporting threshold was narrowly tailored to that informational interest; 3) the post-election reporting requirement was directly related to the State’s informational interest and burdened no more speech than was required; and 4) Plaintiffs were unlikely to show a reasonable probability that disclosure of the identities of Proposition 8 contributors would result in threats, harassment and reprisals, and thus Plaintiffs were unlikely to show an exemption from the disclosure requirements was warranted. Very little has changed in this case since the Court originally addressed the parties’ arguments in the context of Plaintiffs’ original Motion. Even with what new evidence Plaintiffs have provided at this juncture, however, they have failed to convince this Court that its prior reasoning was unsound or that any shift in the Court’s position is justified now. Accordingly, for the following reasons, Defendants, not Plaintiffs, are entitled to summary judgment. A. Whether Plaintiffs Have Shown a Reasonable Probability that Disclosure of their Contributors’ Identities will Result in Threats, Harassment or Reprisals According to Plaintiffs, disclosure of the identities of their contributors must be barred because they have demonstrated a reasonable probability that such disclosure will lead to threats, harassment or reprisals. Plaintiffs’ Motion, 5:16-22 (citing Citizens United v. FEC, — U.S .—, 130 5. Ct. 876, 914, 175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010) (internal quotations omitted); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 74, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976)). This Court rejected this same argument in its Order Denying Preliminary Injunction explaining the rule as follows: The test applicable to Plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action was initially formulated in Buckley when the Supreme Court rejected an overbreadth challenge to all reporting requirements imposed on minor parties. 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612. Despite its rejection of a blanket disclosure exemption for all such groups, the Court left open the possibility that similar minor parties in the future might be able to seek such immunity if they could show that there was a reasonable probability their contributors would suffer from harassment, threats, or reprisals as a result of such revelation. The Buckley Court began its discussion by noting that the “governmental interest in disclosure is diminished when the contribution in question is made to a minor party with little chance of winning an election. As minor parties usually represent definite and publicized viewpoints, there may be less need to inform the voters of the interests that specific candidates represent. Major parties encompass candidates of greater diversity. In many situations the label ‘Republican’ or Democrat’ tells a voter little. The candidate who bears it may be supported by funds from the far right, the far left, or any place in between on the political spectrum. It is less likely that a candidate of, say, the Socialist Labor Party will represent interests that cannot be discerned from the party’s ideological position.” Id. at 70, 96 S.Ct. 612. Additionally, that Court was cognizant that “the damage done by disclosure to the associational interests of the minor parties and their members and to supporters of independents could be significant. These movements are less likely to have a sound financial base and thus are more vulnerable to falloffs in contributions. In some instances fears of reprisal may deter contributions to the point where the movement cannot survive. The public interest also suffers if that result comes to pass, for there is a consequent reduction in the free circulation of ideas both within and without the political arena.” Id. at 71, 96 S.Ct. 612. Accordingly, the Buckley Court determined that, though such facts were not before it, “[tjhere could well be a case ... where the threat to the exercise of First Amendment rights is so serious and the state interest furthered by disclosure so insubstantial that the Act’s requirements [could not] be constitutionally applied.” Id. That Court further observed “that unduly strict requirements of proof could impose a heavy burden, but it does not follow that a blanket exemption for minor parties is necessary. Minor parties must be allowed sufficient flexibility in the proof of injury to assure a fair consideration of their claim. The evidence offered need show only a reasonable probability that the compelled disclosure of a party’s contributors’ names will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisal from either Government officials or private parties. The proof may include, for example, specific evidence of past or present harassment of members due to their assoeiational ties, or of harassment directed against the organization itself. A pattern of threats or specific manifestations of public hostility may be sufficient.” Id. at 74, 96 S.Ct. 612. [FN # 7] The Buckley Court noted that the facts in NAACP v. Alabama could possibly have warranted sustaining an as-applied challenge to Alabama’s compelled disclosure requirements. Id. at 71, 96 S.Ct. 612. The NAACP v. Alabama Court stated, “We think that the production order, in the respects here drawn in question, must be regarded as entailing the likelihood of a substantial restraint upon the exercise by petitioner’s members of their right to freedom of association. Petitioner has made an uncontroverted showing that on past occasions revelation of the identity of its rank-and-file members has exposed these members to economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility. Under these circumstances, we think it apparent that compelled disclosure of petitioner’s Alabama membership is likely to affect adversely the ability of petitioner and its members to pursue their collective effort to foster beliefs which they admittedly have the right to advocate, in that it may induce members to withdraw from the Association and dissuade others from joining it because of fear of exposure of their beliefs shown through their associations and of the consequences of this exposure.” NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. [449], at 462-463, 78 S.Ct. 1163[, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 (1958) ]. The Supreme Court later had occasion to apply the Buckley test in Brown. The Brown Court addressed the issue of “[w]hether certain disclosure requirements of the Ohio Campaign Expense Reporting Law ... [could] be constitutionally applied to the Socialist Workers Party [“SWP”], a minor political party which historically ha[d] been the object of harassment by government officials and private parties.” Brown [v. Socialist Workers, '74 Campaign Committee], [459 U.S. 87, 88, 103 S.Ct. 416, 74 L.Ed.2d 250 (1982) ]. That Court emphasized several points raised in Buckley reiterating that “[t]he government’s interests in compelling disclosures are ‘diminished’ in the case of minor parties ... [and at] the same time, the potential for impairing First Amendment interests is substantially greater.” Id. at 92, 96 S.Ct. 612 (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 70, 96 S.Ct. 612). In Brown, the Court had before it “ ‘substantial evidence of both governmental and private hostility toward and harassment of SWP members and supporters.’ Appellees introduced proof of specific incidents of private and government hostility toward the SWP and its members within the four years preceding the trial. These incidents, many of which occurred in Ohio and neighboring states, included threatening phone calls and hate mail, the burning of SWP literature, the destruction of SWP members’ property, police harassment of a party candidate, and the firing of shots at an SWP office. There was also evidence that in the 12-month period before trial, 22 SWP members, including four in Ohio, were fired because of their party membership. The evidence amply supported] the District Court’s conclusion that ‘private hostility and harassment toward SWP members make it difficult for them to maintain employment.’ ” Brown at 98-99, 103 S.Ct. 416. Moreover, “[t]he District Court also found a past history of government harassment of the SWP. FBI surveillance of the SWP was ‘massive’ and continued until at least 1976. The FBI also conducted a counterintelligence program against the SWP and the Young Socialist Alliance, the SWP’s youth organization. One of the aims of the ‘SWP Disruption Program’ was the dissemination of information designed to impair the ability of the SWP and the YSA to function. This program included ‘disclosing to the press the criminal records of SWP candidates, and sending anonymous letters to SWP members, supporters, spouses, and employers.’ Until at least 1976, the FBI employed various covert techniques to obtain information about the SWP, including information concerning the source of its funds and the nature of its expenditures. The District Court specifically found that the FBI had conducted surveillance of the Ohio SWP and had interfered with its activities within the State. Government surveillance was not limited to the FBI. The United States Civil Service Commission also gathered information on the SWP, the YSA, and their supporters, and the FBI routinely distributed its reports to Army, Navy, and Air Force Intelligence, the United States Secret Service, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.” Id. at 99-100, 103 S.Ct. 416. Finally, “the Government possesse[d] about 8,000,000 documents relating to the SWP, YSA ... and their members ... Since 1960, the FBI ha[d] had about 300 informants who were members of the SWP and/or YSA and 1,000 nonmember informants. Both the Cleveland and Cincinnati FBI field offices had one or more SWP or YSA member informants. Approximately 2 of the SWP member informants held local branch offices. Three informants even ran for elective office as SWP candidates. The 18 informants whose files were disclosed to [the Special Master] received total payments of $358,648.38 for their services and expenses.” Id. at 100 n. 18, 103 S.Ct. 416. The Brown Court determined that “the evidence of private and government hostility toward the SWP and its members established] a reasonable probability that disclosing the names of contributors and recipients [would] subject them to threats, harassment, and reprisals.” Id. at 100,103 S.Ct. 416. ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen, 599 F.Supp.2d 1197, 1212-1214 (E.D.Cal.2009). Based on the same above authorities, Plaintiffs now ask this Court to issue a similar decision and to exempt those contributing to Plaintiffs’ cause from the disclosure requirements of the PRA. In support of their argument, Plaintiffs point to the incidents described by the Court above. Those incidents are characterized by Plaintiffs as including death threats, physical assaults and threats of violence, vandalism and threats of destruction of property, arson and threats of arson, angry protests, lewd demonstrations, intimidating emails and phone calls, hate mail, mailed envelopes containing white suspicious powder, blacklisting, loss of employment and job opportunities, intimidation and reprisals on campus and the classroom, acts of intimidation through photography, economic reprisals and demands for hush money, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry. Plaintiffs’ Motion, 7:14-8:2. For their part, Defendants disagree with Plaintiffs’ characterization of the evidence. Before turning to the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ evidence, however, there is one core point pertaining to the Buckley test itself that necessitates initial consideration. First and foremost, the parties hotly contest whether Plaintiffs are entitled to seek refuge under the exemption provided by Buckley and its progeny because that exemption was created for, and historically has been applied only to, “minor parties” or small, persecuted groups whose very existence depended on some manner of anonymity. Despite their ongoing contention that anyone making the requisite showing of threats, harassment and reprisals is entitled to the exemption, Plaintiffs’ Reply, 3:14-4:3, Plaintiffs did acknowledge at oral argument that the “minor party” element is a relevant consideration before the Court. This Court previously addressed the same issue in its Order Denying Preliminary Injunction finding that: Both Buckley and Brown addressed the need to balance the government’s diminished interest in the disclosure of contributors to minor parties against the burden imposed on those small groups by requiring such disclosure. In light of clearly established precedent, this Court is unable to say that the State’s interest here is similarly diminished or that the Plaintiffs’ potential burden is even remotely comparable. Unlike the facts in Brown, the proponents of Proposition 8 succeeded in persuading over seven million voters to support their cause. They were successful in their endeavor to pass the ballot initiative and raised millions of dollars in the process. This set of circumstances is a far cry from the sixty-member SWP party, repeatedly unsuccessful at the polls, and incapable of raising sufficient funds. Indeed, it became abundantly clear during oral argument that Plaintiffs could not in good conscience analogize their current circumstances to those of either the SWP or the Alabama NAACP circa 1950. Additionally, the Court has already extensively evaluated the nature of the State’s interest and, in light of the marked differences between this and every other case in which an exemption has been allowed, simply cannot by any stretch of the imagination say that the Government’s interest “is so insubstantial that the Act’s requirements cannot be constitutionally applied” to Plaintiffs. To the contrary, as applied to the massive movement waged by Plaintiffs, the State’s interest in disclosure is at full force. Similarly, the greater burden alleged to be imposed on Plaintiffs also necessarily derives from their minority status. The Second Circuit stated in Federal Election Commission v. Hall-Tyner Election Campaign Committee that “[a]cknowledging the importance of fostering the existence of minority political parties, we must also recognize that such groups rarely have a firm financial foundation. If apprehension is bred in the minds of contributors to fringe organizations by fear that their support of an unpopular ideology will be revealed, they may cease to provide financial assistance. The resulting decrease in contributions may threaten the minority party’s very existence. Society suffers from such a consequence because the free flow of ideas, the lifeblood of the body politic, is necessarily reduced. Accordingly, a nation dedicated to free thought and free expression cannot ignore the grave results of facially innocuous election requirements.” 678 F.2d 416, 420 (2d Cir.1982). Moreover, “[t]he power of a government to repress dissent is substantial and can be exercised in a myriad of subtle ways. Privacy is an essential element of the right of association and the ability to express dissent effectively ... [F]orced revelations would likely lead to ‘vexatious inquiries’ which consequently could instill in the public an unremitting fear of becoming linked with the unpopular or unorthodox.” Id. Notably absent from this case is any evidence that those burdens hypothesized by the Supreme Court would befall the current Plaintiffs. There is no evidence that their financial backing is so tenuous as to render them susceptible to a relatively minor and entirely speculative fall-off in contributions. There is surely no evidence that the seven million individuals who voted in favor of Proposition 8 can be considered a “fringe organization” or that their beliefs would be considered unpopular or unorthodox. Finally, there is no evidence that any of Plaintiffs’ contributors intend to retreat from the marketplace of ideas such that available discourse will be materially diminished. Finally, it would appear that, while minor status is a necessary element of a successful as-applied claim, even minor status alone could not independently sustain Plaintiffs’ current cause of action. Brown and its progeny each involved groups seeking to further ideas historically and pervasively rejected and vilified by both this country’s government and its citizens. In dicta, the Ninth Circuit addressed this pattern when it rejected a plea for exemption waged by a contributor to a minor party that “was not promoting a reviled cause or candidate.” Goland v. U.S., 903 F.2d 1247, 1260 (9th Cir.1990). The facts in the current case could not be more distinguishable from those in which successful challenges have been brought. Here, Plaintiffs orchestrated a massive movement to amend the California Constitution. Proponents of the initiative were successful in their endeavor, raising nearly $30 million, securing 52.3% of the vote and convincing over seven million voters to support Proposition 8. Plaintiffs did not seek to promote a “reviled cause,” and instead sought to legislate a concept steeped in tradition and history. Accordingly, in light of Plaintiffs’ success at the polls and the State’s ... informational interest, the Court cannot say that the Government’s interest in this case is so insubstantial or the burden on Plaintiffs so great as to warrant an exemption from disclosure. Plaintiffs nonetheless would have the Court find these comparisons irrelevant. Plaintiffs contend that the Buckley Court’s reference to “minor” parties is applicable only in the context of its rejection of the request before it for a blanket exemption. See Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 13:19-24. According to Plaintiffs, the Supreme Court determined in Buckley, that if a group could prove there was a reasonable probability that disclosure would lead to harassment, threats, and reprisals, an exemption was required. However, Plaintiffs’ interpretation renders superfluous the Buckley Court’s analysis of the relative governmental interest and individual burdens in the context of minor parties. Neither did the Brown Court so broadly interpret Buckley when it repeated, “The First Amendment prohibits a state from compelling disclosures by a minor party that will subject those persons identified to the reasonable probability of threats, harassment or reprisals.” Brown, 459 U.S. at 101-102, 103 S.Ct. 416 (emphasis added). Since Buckley, as-applied challenges have been successfully raised only by minor parties, specifically those parties, as discussed, having small constituencies and promoting historically unpopular and almost universally-rejected ideas. As stated, in Brown, the SWP consisted of only sixty members in Ohio. Id. at 88, 103 S.Ct. 416. The parties’ “aim was the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of a workers’ government to achieve socialism.” The party was historically unsuccessful at the polls though its members regularly ran for public office. Id. Additionally, campaign contributions and expenditures ... averaged approximately $15,000 annually.” Id. at 89,103 S.Ct. 416. Similarly, in Hall-Tyner, a committee supporting the Communist Party successfully sought exemption from state disclosure laws. 678 F.2d 416. Later, in McArthur v. Smith, members of the SWP, described as a “small and unpopular political party,” again successfully challenged state disclosure requirements. 716 F.Supp. 592, 593 (S.D.Fla. 1989). There is simply no plausible analogy to be had in this case. Finally, this Court is confident that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Buckley and Brown, both of which narrowly articulated the instant exception to disclosure laws, were not made without great consideration. Prior courts surely were aware that members of major parties might potentially, on some future occasion, become the target of threats or harassment at the hands of extremist members of an opposing group. Despite that possibility, the Supreme Court created an exception not for the majority, but for those groups in which the government has a diminished interest. ProtectMarriage.com, 599 F.Supp.2d at 1214-1216. Nothing before the Court today renders its above analysis inapplicable. To the contrary, the Court stands by its prior conclusion from almost three years ago and finds that Plaintiffs’ inability to make a principled analogy to the parties in the above cases is fatal to their current claim. Plaintiffs’ reliance on dicta in Doe v. Reed, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 2811, 177 L.Ed.2d 493 (2010) (“Reed”), for the proposition that the Supreme Court has already determined Plaintiffs are privy to the exemption does nothing to change this Court’s opinion. Reed concerned a challenge, by groups and individuals similar to Plaintiffs, to Washington’s compelled disclosure requirement insofar as those requirements pertained to referendum signatories. According to Plaintiffs, “the [Reed ] Court never so much as hinted that the exposure exemption would not be available to the group. To the contrary, a clear majority of the Court agreed that an exemption was indeed available to the group (although the Justices differed widely as to the threshold showing of threats, harassment, or reprisals that would be required to grant an exemption).” Plaintiffs’ Reply, 4:5-9. Plaintiffs overstate their case. The issue before the Reed Court was “not whether disclosure of [a] particular petition would violate the First Amendment, but whether disclosure of referendum petitions in general would do so.” 130 S.Ct. at 2815. Accordingly, Reed “[left] it to the lower courts to consider in the first instance the signors’ more focused claim concerning disclosure of the information on [that] particular petition.” Id. Plaintiffs thus appear to argue that, by-remanding for the lower courts to consider Plaintiffs’ as-applied challenge based on any potential threats, harassment or reprisals contributors might suffer upon disclosure, the Supreme Court somehow sanctioned application of the Buckley exemption to major parties. However, Justice Alito was the only Justice that even alluded to the possibility that the Washington plaintiffs might succeed in their as-applied challenge, and his sweeping assertions as to the strength of Plaintiffs’ case are premature given the posture of the case before that Court. See id. at 2823-3827. Accordingly, nothing in Doe v. Reed, at least at this juncture, overrides the clear statements made in past Supreme Court cases indicating that disclosure exemptions were primarily intended to combat harms suffered by small, persecuted groups. Even if Plaintiffs could overcome the above hurdle, however, their evidence is still insufficient to warrant an exemption. Indeed, in its Order Denying Preliminary Injunction, this Court found Plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim for the reasons reiterated below, and nothing Plaintiffs have currently presented has convinced this Court departure from its former logic is now warranted on summary judgment. In its prior Order, this Court stated: Unlike prior cases, in which plaintiffs alleged to have suffered mistreatment over extended periods of time, the alleged harassment directed at Proposition 8 supporters occurred over the course of a few months during the heat of an election battle surrounding a hotly contested ballot initiative. Only random acts of violence directed at a very small segment of the supporters of the initiative are alleged. Moreover, while Plaintiffs are quite correct that under Buckley evidence of harassment “from either Government officials or private parties” could suffice to establish the requisite proof of reprisals, the facts of subsequent cases evidence not only the existence of some governmental hostility, but quite pervasive governmental hostility at that. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 74, 96 S.Ct. 612 (emphasis added); see also McArthur, 716 F.Supp. at 594 (“[H]arassment, reprisals or threats from private persons are sufficient to allow [the] court to enforce the plaintiff’s first amendment rights by cloaking the contributors and recipients’ names in secrecy.”). Indeed, the Brown Court was confronted with countless acts of government harassment and retribution against members of the SWP, which are detailed above. Furthermore, in UalV-Tyner, the Second Circuit stated, “[t]he evidence relied on by the district judge included the extensive body of state and federal legislation subjecting Communist Party members to civil disability and criminal liability, reports and affidavits documenting the history of governmental surveillance and harassment of Communist Party members, as well as affidavits indicating the desire of contributors to the Committee to remain anonymous.” 678 F.2d at 419. Plaintiffs do not, indeed cannot, allege that the movement to recognize marriage in California as existing only between a man and a woman is vulnerable to the same threats as were socialist and communist groups, or, for that matter, the NAACP. Proposition 8 supporters promoted a concept entirely devoid of governmental hostility. Plaintiffs’ belief in the traditional concept of marriage, to disagreement, have not historically invited animosity. The Court is at a loss to find any principled analogy between two such greatly diverging sets of circumstances. Finally, Plaintiffs’ exemption argument appears to be premised, in large part, on the concept that individuals should be free from even legal consequences of their speech. That is simply not the nature of their right. Just as contributors to Proposition 8 are free to speak in favor of the initiative, so are opponents free to express their disagreement through proper legal means. While the Court is cognizant of the deplorable nature of many of acts alleged by Plaintiffs, the Court also must reiterate that the legality or morality of any specific acts is not before it. Thus, as much as the Court strongly condemns the behavior of those who resort to violence, and/or other illegal behavior, the Court need not, indeed cannot, evaluate the proper legal consequences of those actions today. By the same token, nothing in the Court’s decision immunizes or excuses those who have engaged in illegal acts from the consequences of their conduct. Those responsible for threatening the lives of supporters of Proposition 8 are subject to criminal liability. See Troupis Deck, Exh. C (noting that the Fresno chief of police stated the department was “close to making an arrest” in the case of the death threats delivered to the mayor and a local pastor.) Those choosing to vandalize the property of individuals or the public are likewise liable. Those mailing white powder to organizations are subject to federal prosecution. In each case, there are appropriate legal channels through which to rectify and deter the reoccurrence of such reprehensible behavior. As much as those channels are available today, it is unlikely that groups previously successful in seeking exemptions were privy to the same opportunities. Again, Plaintiffs have shown no societal or governmental hostility to their cause. Contrary to groups such as the SWP, Plaintiffs can seek adequate relief from law enforcement and the legal system. Such was not the case for those thought to be supporting the SWP or communist groups, those subject to actual criminal liability based on their beliefs and their associations. ProtectMarriage.com, 599 F.Supp.2d at 1217-1218. Despite Plaintiffs attempt now to put forth additional evidence of threats, harassment and reprisals, the Court’s findings remain the same. More specifically, despite the additional declarations and exhibits that are now before the Court, Plaintiffs still run into problems of proportionality and magnitude. First, while Plaintiffs characterize their evidence as voluminous and comprised of “virtually countless reports of threats, harassment, and reprisals,” Plaintiffs’ Motion, 4:14-15, they have pointed to relatively few incidents allegedly suffered by persons located across the entire country who had somehow manifested their support for traditional marriage. In addition, while the evidence before this Court indicates that at least 7 million voters showed up at the California polls alone to support the passage of Proposition 8, this number, though large, still deceptively underestimates the number of supporters for Plaintiffs’ cause. Indeed, this figure does not capture all individuals supporting Proposition 8 on a national scale, nor does it capture those individuals who may have no connection to California’s campaign, but have supported the same cause in other regions. Plaintiffs’ evidence of harassment, nonetheless extends much farther than California’s borders and includes incidents that arose in other states and that were directed at the much broader social issue of gay marriage in general. Accordingly, even assuming Plaintiffs could, under some set of circumstances, prove an entitlement to an exemption, they would need evidence of thousands of acts of reprisals, threats or harassment, spanning much more than the short period of time covering California’s ballot-initiative process to prove contributors to such a massive group are entitled to anonymity of the type justified years ago for the individuals in Brown and NAACP. The declarations of 58 individuals signed in the months just following the election, along with Plaintiffs’ anecdotal evidence from the same time period as documented in Exhibits 3 and 4, is simply insufficient on the facts of this case to convince this Court an ordinary contributor to Proposition 8 would have faced any backlash worthy of quashing the names of all contributors. See, e.g., Doe v. Reed, 130 S.Ct. at 2829 (taking the position exemptions may be permitted “in the rare circumstance in which disclosure poses a reasonable probability of serious and widespread harassment”) (Sotomayor, J., concurring-joined by Stevens and Ginsburg). Moreover, as the Court previously observed, notably absent from the record here are any instances in which Plaintiffs have suffered any sort of governmental backlash. While, based on the language derived from Buckley, governmental harassment is not necessarily a required showing, it is a factor for this Court to consider. Indeed, some governmental animosity has been present in all other cases in which an exemption has been permitted. Perhaps recognizing this, Plaintiffs argue “[tjhere can be no question that in many areas in California, and around the country, views against same-sex marriage ... are extremely unpopular” and “[ejven our courts of law have characterized those who fight against such laws as advocates of hate and bigotry who act ‘without reason.’ ” Plaintiffs’ Motion, 12:15-18. Nonetheless, any attempt by Plaintiffs to show governmental animosity here is half-hearted at best. As described above, parties entitled to an as-applied exemption (namely the NAACP and the SWP) in the past had suffered from systematic governmental discrimination, persecution and abuse. Those plaintiffs were not only directly victimized by the government, they consequently lacked adequate recourse to pursue means short of nondisclosure to protect against private violence. In this case, Plaintiffs cannot assert that there is some sort of governmental hostility to their cause, nor can they in good conscience argue that law enforcement was or would be non-responsive to any illegal acts directed at Plaintiffs contributors. To the contrary, Plaintiffs’ own evidence indicates law enforcement was not only responsive, but diligent in undertaking investigations into some of the more heinous acts alleged here. This factor is critical in light of the comments made by several concurring Justices in Doe v. Reed, indicating the ability of law enforcement to deal with threats, harassment and reprisals would weigh heavily against a need for an exemption. See, e.g., Doe, 130 S.Ct. at 2829 (exemption may be warranted “in the rare circumstance in which disclosure poses a reasonable probability of serious and widespread harassment that the State is unwilling or unable to control”) (Sotomayor, J., concurring, joined by Stevens and Ginsburg); id. at 2831 (“From time to time throughout history, persecuted groups have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all ... In my view, this is unlikely to occur in cases involving the PRA. Any burden on speech that petitioners posit is speculative as well as indirect. For an as-applied challenge to a law such as the PRA to succeed, there would have to be a significant threat of harassment directed at those who sign the petition that cannot be mitigated by law enforcement measures.”) (Stevens and Breyer, JJ., concurring); id. at 2837 (“There are laws against threats and intimidation; and harsh criticism, short of unlawful action, is a price our people have traditionally been willing to pay for self-governance.”) (Scalia, J., concurring). In addition, the vast majority of the incidents cited by Plaintiffs are arguably, as characterized by Defendants, typical of any controversial campaign. For example, picketing, protesting, boycotting, distributing flyers, destroying yard signs and voicing dissent do not necessarily rise to the level of “harassment” or “reprisals,” especially in comparison to acts directed at groups in the past. Moreover, a good portion of these actions are themselves forms of speech protected by the United States Constitution. Indeed this Court previously held that: [T]he Court simply cannot ignore the fact that numerous of the acts about which Plaintiffs complain are mechanisms relied upon, both historically and lawfully, to voice dissent. The decision and ability to patronize a particular establishment or business is an inherent right of the American people, and the public has historically remained free to choose where to, or not to, allocate its economic resources. As such, individuals have repeatedly resorted to boycotts as a form of civil protest intended to convey a powerful message without resort to non-violent means. The Supreme Court has acknowledged these rights on many an occasion: In Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 60 S.Ct. 736, 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940), the Court held that peaceful picketing was entitled to constitutional protection, even though, in that case, the purpose of the picketing “was concededly to advise customers and prospective customers of the relationship existing between the employer and its employees and thereby to induce such customers not to patronize the employer.” Id. at 99, 60 S.Ct. 736. Cf. Chauffeurs v. Newell, 356 U.S. 341, 78 S.Ct. 779, 2 L.Ed.2d 809 [ (1958) ]. In Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 83 S.Ct. 680, 9 L.Ed.2d 697 [ (1963) ], we held that a peaceful march and demonstration was protected by the rights of free speech, free assembly, and free