“Speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self government[,]” and heightened constitutional protections apply to such expressions regardless of whether the speaker is an individual or a group…this Court has repeatedly held that political committee regulations can place undue burdens on community groups focused on issue advocacy. Such regulations threaten to decrease public debate among grass roots civil society groups and the general public. The decision below abandons the major purpose test that this Court explicitly crafted to protect vibrant public discourse. The Ninth Circuit’s error jeopardizes civil discourse interests, and without this Court’s correction and clarification this problem will undoubtedly worsen. The Petition should be granted.