Strict or exacting scrutiny has been employed in circumstances not presented in the pending case. The cases discussed above which applied strict scrutiny do not lend themselves to a simple synthesis. As we read them, however, strict scrutiny is applied where the government restricts the overall quantum of speech available to the election or voting process. More particularly, strict scrutiny is employed where the quantum of speech is limited due to restrictions on campaign expenditures, as in
Valeo, the available pool of circulators or other supporters of a candidate or initiative, as in
ACLF and
Meyer, or the anonymity of such supporters, as in
ACLF, Valeo, and
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n. For example, the Court explained in
Meyer “that the prohibition against the use of paid circulators has the inevitable effect of reducing the total quantum of speech on a public issue.”
In
Valeo, the Court applied exacting scrutiny to contribution and expenditure limits,
reasoning that “contribution and expenditure limitations impose direct quantity restrictions on political communication and association by persons, groups, candidates, and political parties,” and that “a primary effect of ... expenditure limitations is to restrict the quantity of campaign speech by individuals, groups, and candidates.”
In our view, the title setting process appellants challenge cannot be characterized as a direct limitation on the quantity of speech available to them. If anything, requiring proponents to pursue separate initiatives on separate subjects might encourage more speech on each such subject.