With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". may be imposed.”). A government’s power to regulate solicitors, even through identification gathering, is of course bounded by the First Amendment. See Martin, 319 U.S. at 149, 63 S.Ct. 862 (all regulations must provide "due respect for the constitutional rights of those desiring to distribute literature and those desiring to receive it”). In various contexts, the Court has struck down on First Amendment grounds regulations requiring speakers or an association's members to identify themselves. See, e.g., Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 80 S.Ct. 536, 4 L.Ed.2d 559 (1960) (striking down municipal ordinance requiring all handbills to contain the author and distributor's names); Brown v. Socialist Workers 74 Campaign Committee, 459 U.S. 87, 103 S.Ct. 416, 74 L.Ed.2d 250 (1982) (<HOLDING>). 12 . Pleasant Grove attempts to fall back on

A: holding a party cannot be joined to prevent removal where no cause of action can be brought against that party
B: holding that names of private individuals appearing in files within the ambit of exemption 7c are categorically exempt from disclosure unless disclosing such information is necessary in order to confirm or refute compelling evidence that the agency is engaged in illegal activity
C: holding that californias appropriation statute covered appropriation of pseudonyms because nicknames and pen names are names
D: holding that requirement of disclosing names and addresses of campaign contributors cannot constitutionally be applied to the party
D.