United States v. Quid. Pharmaceutical industry CEO James J. Quid mailed a $100,000 check to the reelection campaign of Arizona Senator Jane Pro-Quo with the following note attached: "As we discussed, you scratch my back, I scratch yours. Thanks for killing those new price regulations in committee. Here's to another six years"; When a whistleblower within the campaign made these documents public, federal prosecutors charged Quid with bribery. Quid immediately moved to dismiss the charges as a violation of his First Amendment right to free speech. Is his motion likely to succeed?Is this an easy case or a hard case? Question 1 options: Hard, because the government has no compelling interest at stake. Easy, because, even after Citizens United, the government is clearly permitted to prohibit quid pro quo corruption (i.e., bribery). Hard, because the prosecution of bribery is not narrowly tailored to (that is, not clearly necessary to) achieve the government's compelling interest in eradicating quid pro quo corruption. Easy, because writing is speech and spending money in connection with politics is protected by Citizens United