With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". free to become a member of any political association and to assist personally in the association's efforts on behalf of candidates." Id. at 22, 96 S.Ct. 612. This comparison of speech and association freedoms led the Supreme Court in Buckley to find that "the primary First Amendment problem raised by ... contribution limitations is their restriction of one aspect of the contributor's freedom of political association." Id. at 24, 96 S.Ct. 612. The Supreme Court in Buckley concluded that contribution limits are not subject to strict serutiny but may violate the First Amendment if they are not closely drawn to match a sufficiently important government interest. Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230, 247, 126 S.Ct. 2479, 165 L.Ed.2d 482 (2006) (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 21, 24, 96 S.Ct. 612 (<HOLDING>). We adopt the Buckley framework here. Our

A: holding plaintiff must be closely related to victim
B: holding that a state must demonstrate a sufficiently important interest and employ means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms
C: holding that inmates must demonstrate an actual injury
D: holding that an informational interest is not sufficiently important to sustain compelled disclosure of advocates identities during the circulation period
B.