The case is Prete v. Wiliams. The Eighth circuit had reached the same conclusion in 2001. Both courts relied upon an anti-fraud interest of the state. For a discussion, see Lowenstein & Hasen at 437.
comment after the fold

Demorep writes:
From my friendly 1900’s dictionary —
abridge-
1. to reduce in scope, extent, etc. : shorten
2. to shorten by using fewer words but keeping the main content; condense
3. to lessen or curtail (rights, authority, etc.)
4. [Rare] to deprive (of rights, privileges, etc.)
—————————
See First Amendment; 14th Amdt, Secs. 1 and 2; 15th Amdt, Sec. 1; 19th Amdt, para. 1; 24th Amdt, Sec. 1; 26th Amdt, Sec. 1.
What does ANY 1789 dictionary say about *no*, *abridge* or *abridging* — regardless of scores (hundreds ?) of First Amendment speech and press JUNK opinions by the appointed party hack MORON Supremes ?
ALL the JUNK opinions must be overruled if the rights in the First Amendment are going to survive.
——
What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wall) 277, 325 (1867); U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 778, 829 (1995).
A law must be tested by its operation and effect. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 708-709 (1931); U.S. Term Limits, Inc., supra, 514 U.S., at 831.