[EL] Intermediate scrutiny in panhandling cases and campaign finance cases

[Edward Still]

I was just reading the decision in Reynolds v Middleton, 779 F4d 222 (4th
Cir 2015), where the court (in a case about content-neutral time, place,
and manner regulations of speech in traditional public forums)  applied
"intermediate scrutiny" defined as “narrowly tailored to serve a
significant government interest and leave open ample alternative channels of
communication.”

In campaign finance cases, courts use a standard sometimes also called
"intermediate scrutiny" but defined as “closely drawn to serve a
sufficiently important government interest."

Has anyone come up with a sort of concordance so that we can take cases
from the public-forum cases to the campaign-finance cases and vice versa?
Put another way, are the two forms of intermediate scrutiny close enough
that we can cite cases from one type in cases of the other type?

Edward Still
Edward Still Law Firm LLC
429 Green Springs Hwy, STE 161-304
Birmingham AL 35209
205-320-2882
still at votelaw.com
www.votelaw.com/blog
www.edwardstill.com
www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill <http://www.linkedin.com/edwardstill>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150403/319616c8/attachment.html>