ÿWPC7' …# VUNa %¯ 0 Dµ 0ˆù 0D w@Å 4  0`( bˆ UF Ö 0JÞ 0T( 0^| 0hÚ 0rB 0|´ 0†0 D3¶ 0é By 0@– 1uÖ 0dKU>¯níU6[B)‘DCº AMýU*J2tþ¦p¤ü¼ÜÌ™¨v~AvÓ¿ AO’%Æá% 0D§& D/ë& B'˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀäÌÀÀÌÀä0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(óf$¡¡Ò€°ÒÒÀ°Ò(8(3ß«$¤¤Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó â Dã ä Då æ Dç è Dé ê Ó€ö z!Ôô3|xö (83‚ª$©©Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ý- ù-.Courier New Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô,,,,'ÿÿdxd2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò!"'()+ ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman dÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€6ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ)ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d99997Border 1dd€-:Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€6ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÔ€<ÔÔ€<ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€<XÔÌÌò òOctoberÏ28,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€<ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ôÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€6ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€8ÔÔ€8ôÔ1976€Tenn.€Public€Acts,€ch.€735.Ì fÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€6ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€8ÔÔ€8ôÔThe€current€version€of€the€Act€is€codified€at€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€48„101„501€to€48„101„521€(Supp.€1996).€€This€case€arose€under€the€1989€Act.Ì òÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€6ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€8ÔÔ€8ôÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€48„3„503.Ì ²Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€6ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€8ÔÔ€8ôÔThe€First€Amendment€states,€"Congress€shall€make€no€law€...€abridgingÏthe€freedom€of€speech€...."Ô€6ÔÔ€6XÔÌÌà àÔ€8ÔÔ€8ôÔArticle€I,€Section€19€states,€"[t]he€free€communication€of€thoughts€andÏopinions€is€one€of€the€invaluable€rights€of€man,€and€every€citizen€may€freelyÏspeak,€write,€and€print€on€any€subject,€being€responsible€for€the€abuse€of€thatÏliberty."ÌÌà àThis€Court€has€held€that€Article€I,€Section€19€is€"a€substantiallyÏstronger€provision€than€that€contained€in€the€First€Amendment€to€the€FederalÏConstitution."€€òòPress,€Inc.€v.€Verranóó,€569€S.W.2d€435,€442€(Tenn.€1978).€ÏHowever,€that€distinction€need€not€be€noted€in€this€decision.Ì ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€6ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€8ÔÔ€8ôÔThe€exemptions€of€volunteer€fire€departments,€and€religious,€educational,Ïand€certain€charitable€organizations€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€48„3„502€(Supp.€1991),Ïfound€to€be€constitutional€by€the€Court€of€Appeals,€were€not€challenged€on€appealÏto€this€Court.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€6ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€6ôÔÔ€8ÔThe€suggestion€that€the€State€may€publish€the€information€it€receivesÏfrom€post€solicitation€disclosure€forms€and€vigorously€enforce€its€anti„fraudÏlaws€as€a€more€narrowly€tailored€option€must€be€rejected€as€far€less€effective€inÏletting€the€public€know€whether€the€person€who€has€called€them€on€the€telephoneÏis€a€professional€solicitor€and€whether€their€contribution€will€go€directly€toÏthe€charity.Ô€6ÔÔ€6XÔÌPtPtHPð€ÿÜÿìô”(üHPð€P € €'Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€6ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÖ€7ÖÑ  ÑÓ` °‚X.h—XÓÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€8ԛрÑÑ7€ZØXXdÖdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñœ›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àòòFORÏPUBLICATIONóóÌÙ€€ÙœßL€;=:;+'h|4@` à. `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà à(Ì€€€€€Plaintiff„Appellant,à à(à àÌà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà à(€€ShelbyÏChanceryÌv.à àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà à(€€Hon.€D.€J.ÏAlissandratos,Ìà àà àà àà àà à(€€ChancellorÌà àà àà àà àà à(ÌSMOKY€MOUNTAIN€SECRETS,€INC.,à à(€€No.€œ02S01›„9509„CH„00084Ìd/b/a€TASTE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à(ÌœET€AL.,à àà à›à àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà à(Ì€€€€€Defendants„Appellees.à à(ÌÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiff„Appellantóó:à àà à€€€€€òòForÏDefendants„Appelleesóó:ÌÌCharles€W.€Bursonà àà àà àà àS.€RussellÏHeadrickÌAttorney€General€&€Reporterà àà àPaul€E.€PratherÌNashvilleà àà àà àà àà àà àKathyÏLaughter€LaizureÌà àà àà àà àà àà àArmstrong,ÏAllen,€Prewitt,ÌÒ € ÒÒ à ÒMichael€E.€Mooreà àà àà àà à€€€Gentry,ÏJohnston€&€HolmesÌSolicitor€Generalà àà àà àà àMemphisÌNashvilleÌÌElizabeth€P.€McCarterÌSenior€CounselÌÒ € ÒÒ À ÒNashvilleÌ€€€€€ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òO€P€I€NI€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌÌœJUDGMENT€OF€COURT€OF€APPEALS›ÌœAFFIRMED€IN€PART€AND€REVERSED€›ÌœIN€PART;€CASE€REMANDED.›à àà àà àà àà àREID,€J.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThis€case€presents€for€review€the€decision€of€the€CourtÏof€Appeals€regarding€the€constitutionality€of€certain€provisions€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Charitable€Solicitations€Act.€€The€case,€which€wasÏinitiated€by€the€State€as€an€action€for€declaratory€and€injunctiveÏrelief,€is€before€the€Court€on€a€Rule€9€interlocutory€appeal€fromÏjudgments€entered€on€motions€for€summary€judgment€and€dismissal.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€9.€€The€State€appeals€from€the€decision€that€certainÏprovisions€of€the€Act€which€discriminate€against€professionalÏsolicitors€violate€the€equal€protection€provisions€of€the€federal€andÏstate€constitutions,€and€from€the€decision€that€certain€provisions€ofÏthe€Act€which€impose€financial€obligations€on€professional€solicitorsÏviolate€the€freedom€of€speech€provisions€of€those€constitutions.€€TheÏdefendants€appeal€from€the€decision€that€certain€provisions€of€theÍAct€which€require€additional€disclosures€by€professional€solicitorsÏdo€not€violate€the€freedom€of€speech€or€equal€protection€provisionsÏof€the€state€and€federal€constitutions.ÌÌà@ àòòò òThe€Caseóóó óÌÌà àTennessee's€Charitable€Solicitation€Law€was€enacted€inÏ1976,€as€the€Solicitation€of€Charitable€Funds€Act.× ƒ> ××  ×€€As€stated€in€theÏcaption,€it€was€"to€regulate€solicitation€of€funds€for€charitableÏorganizations,€to€authorize€the€Secretary€of€State€to€regulateÏprofessional€solicitors€and€charitable€organizations:€[to€determine]Ïexempt€organizations,€[establish]€registration€procedures,€[andÏprohibit]€acts€and€penalties.€.€.€."ÌÌà àProvisions€of€the€original€Act€which€prohibitedÏsolicitations€by€telephone€and€also€those€that€limited€theÏprofessional€solicitor's€fee€to€15€percent€of€gross€contributionsÏwere€found€by€this€Court€in€òòWRG€œEnter.,›€Inc.€v.€Crowellóó,€758€S.W.2dÏ214€(Tenn.€1988),€to€be€burdens€on€free€speech€prohibited€by€ArticleÏI,€Sections€8€and€19€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€and€the€First€andÍFourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€States€Constitution.€€FollowingÏthe€decision€in€òòWRG€Enterprisesóó€and€the€decision€of€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€in€òòRiley€v.€National€Fed'n€of€the€Blindóó,€487€U.S.€781,Ï108€S.Ct.€2667€(1988),€the€legislature€enacted€the€CharitableÏSolicitation€Reform€Act€of€1989,€which€was€codified€at€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðððð€48„3„501€to€48„3„520€(Supp.€1989).× ƒ? ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€Act€provides€that€"professional€solicitors"€asÏdefined€by€Section€48„3„501(5)€are€required€to€comply€with€certainÏregistration,€fee,€notice,€and€disclosure€provisions€€as€conditionsÏof€engaging€in€charitable€solicitation.€€Professional€solicitors€areÏrequired€to€register€with€the€Secretary€of€State,€Section€48„3„507(a);€pay€an€annual€registration€fee,€Section€48„3„507(d);€post€aÏ$10,000€bond€at€the€time€of€registration,€Section€48„3„507(c);€file€aÏsolicitation€notice€prior€to€the€commencement€of€each€solicitationÏcampaign,€Section€48„3„513(g)(4);€file€copies€of€solicitationÏliterature€and€texts€used€in€the€campaign,€Section€48„3„513(j)(3);Ïand€disclose€at€the€point€of€solicitation€that€they€are€professionalÏsolicitors€who€will€receive€a€portion€of€the€contributions€received,ÍSection€48„3„513(j)(1).€€Employees€of€professional€solicitors€areÏrequired€to€register€and€pay€an€annual€fee,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€48„3„507(b).€€Salaried€employees€and€volunteers€of€charitableÏorganizations€are€not€included€in€the€definition€of€professionalÏsolicitor€and€are€exempted€from€these€provisions.€€Section€48„3„501(5).€€à àÌÌà àThe€defendant,€Smoky€Mountain€Secrets,€Inc.,€is€aÏTennessee€corporation€located€in€Alcoa,€Tennessee€with€an€office€inÏMemphis.€€It€engages€in€the€solicitation€of€charitable€contributionsÏfor€law€enforcement€organizations€in€several€states.€€The€defendantÏMonte€Birch€is€the€manager€of€the€Memphis€office€of€Smoky€MountainÏSecrets€and,€in€addition€to€personally€soliciting€contributions,€heÏdirects€the€hiring€of€telephone€solicitors€and€supervises€them€inÏtheir€solicitation€of€charitable€contributions€from€that€office.€€ÌÌà àSmoky€Mountain€Secrets€entered€into€a€contract€with€theÏFraternal€Order€of€Police€No.€35,€which€is€a€Tennessee€not„for„profitÏcorporation€located€in€Memphis,€to€conduct€a€solicitation€campaign€inÏthe€Memphis€area€to€benefit€the€Fraternal€Order€of€Police's€drugÏabuse€awareness€program.€€The€campaign€involved€the€sale€of€packagesÍof€sauces,€jellies,€and€preserves€furnished€by€Smoky€MountainÏSecrets.€€Pursuant€to€the€agreement,€the€Fraternal€Order€of€PoliceÏwas€to€receive€$3.75€on€each€sale€of€$29.95.€€ÌÌà àOn€April23,€1992,€two€compliance€auditors€from€theÏoffice€of€the€Secretary€of€State,€which€is€charged€with€theÏadministration€and€enforcement€of€the€Act,× ƒ@ ××  ×€made€an€€audit€of€SmokyÏMountain€Secret's€Memphis€office.€€The€auditors'€report€stated€theÏfollowing€violations€of€the€statute:€€Smoky€Mountain€Secrets€was€notÏproperly€registered,€the€telephone€solicitors€did€not€disclose€thatÏthey€were€professional€solicitors,€the€telephone€solicitors€statedÏthat€they€were€calling€for€the€Memphis€State€Trooper€Fraternal€OrderÏof€Police,€the€receipts€given€to€contributors€did€not€make€properÏdisclosures,€and€the€delivery€staff€wore€name€tags€identifyingÏthemselves€as€Fraternal€Order€of€Police€Special€œPrograms›€Staff.€€ÌÌà àOn€January6,€1993,€the€State€filed€a€complaint€seekingÏdeclaratory€and€injunctive€relief€and€civil€penalties€on€the€groundsÏthat€the€defendants€had€violated€the€provisions€of€the€CharitableÏSolicitation€Act€as€amended€by€the€Tennessee€Charitable€SolicitationÍReform€Act€of€1989.€€Specifically,€the€complaint€alleges€that€theÏdefendant€violated€the€Act€by€engaging€in€unfair€and€deceptive€actsÏand€practices,€in€failing€to€register€and€submit€required€informationÏto€the€Secretary€of€State's€office,€and€in€failing€to€make€requiredÏdisclosures€to€potential€contributors€during€the€course€of€theÏsolicitation€campaign€in€1992.€€ÌÌà àOn€January25,€1993,€Smoky€Mountain€Secrets€filed€aÏcounterclaim€for€declaratory€judgment€based€on€the€freedom€of€speechÏand€equal€protection€provisions€of€the€United€States€Constitution€andÏthe€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€counterclaim€seeks€to€bar€theÏenforcement€of€the€Charitable€Solicitations€Act€against€theÏdefendants€on€the€grounds€that€the€registration,€fee,€disclosure,€andÏenforcement€provisions€of€the€Act,€both€on€their€face€and€as€applied,Ïviolate€the€constitutional€rights€of€professional€solicitors.€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€held€that€those€provisions€of€the€ActÏwhich€are€the€subject€of€this€appeal€violate€the€equal€protectionÏprovisions€of€the€state€and€federal€constitutions.€€The€Court€ofÏAppeals€affirmed€the€trial€court's€holding€that€the€registration,Ïnotice,€bond,€and€fee€provisions€of€the€Act,€which€are€applicable€toÍprofessional€solicitors€but€not€to€employees€and€volunteers€ofÏcharitable€organizations,€violate€the€equal€protection€provisions€ofÏthe€state€and€federal€constitutions€and€held,€further,€that€theÏregistration,€bond,€and€fee€provisions€of€the€Act€violate€the€freedomÏof€speech€provisions€of€those€constitutions.€€The€Court€of€AppealsÏheld€that€the€disclosure€provisions€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€48„3„513(j)(1),€requiring€professional€solicitors€to€disclosure€theirÏprofessional€status€and€the€fact€that€they€receive€a€portion€of€theÏfunds€contributed,€do€not€impermissibly€burden€speech€and€areÏnarrowly€tailored€to€achieve€the€State's€interest€in€preventingÏfraud.€ÌÌà àThe€Act€imposes€requirements€and€restrictions€upon€theÏsolicitation€of€contributions€to€charitable€organizations€by€personsÏdefined€as€"professional€solicitors,"€but€exempts€from€thoseÏrequirements€and€restrictions€solicitations€by€salaried€officers€andÏemployees€of€charitable€organizations.€ÌThis€classification€of€persons€who€solicit€charitable€contributionsÏfor€the€purpose€of€regulation€raises€freedom€of€speech€and€equalÏprotection€issues.€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òÔ€8¼ÔFreedom€of€Speech€Analysisóóó óÔ€8XÔÌÌà àBoth€this€Court€and€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€haveÏheld€that€charitable€solicitation€is€constitutionally€fully€protectedÏspeech.× ƒA ××  ×€€In€holding€that€portions€of€the€Tennessee€CharitableÏSolicitations€Act€violate€constitutional€guarantees€of€free€speech,Ïthis€Court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€The€challenge€mounted€here€is€directed€toÏpurported€violations€of€both€the€First€andÏFourteenth€Amendments€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€and€ArticleI,€Sec.19€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution.€€This€Court€hasÏpreviously€recognized€that€regulation€of€FirstÏAmendment€rights€is€subject€to€exactingÏjudicial€review,€as€well€as€the€duty€imposedÏupon€the€State€to€demonstrate€that€any€burdenÏplaced€on€Free€Speech€Rights€must€be€justifiedÏby€a€compelling€State€interest.€€òòSeeóó€òòBemisÍPentecostal€Church€v.€Stateóó,€731€S.W.2d€897,Ï903€(Tenn.€1987).ÌÌÓÓÌòòWRG€Enter.,€Inc.€v.€Crowellóó,€758€S.W.2d€at€215.€€The€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€refused€to€accept€the€argument€that€charitableÏsolicitation€is€commercial€speech,€and,€therefore€not€entitled€toÏfull€constitutional€protection:ÌÌÓÓà8 àOur€lodestars€in€deciding€what€level€ofÏscrutiny€to€apply€to€a€compelled€statementÏmust€be€the€nature€of€the€speech€taken€as€aÏwhole€and€the€effect€of€the€compelledÏstatement€thereon.€€This€is€the€teaching€ofÏòòSchaumburgóó€and€òòMunsonóó,€in€which€we€refused€toÏseparate€the€component€parts€of€charitableÏsolicitations€from€the€fully€protected€whole.€ÏRegulation€of€a€solicitation€"must€beÏundertaken€with€due€regard€for€the€realityÏthat€solicitation€is€characteristicallyÏintertwined€with€informative€and€perhapsÏpersuasive€speech€.€.€.,€and€for€the€realityÏthat€without€solicitation€the€flow€of€suchÏinformation€and€advocacy€would€likely€cease."€Ï[òòSchaumburg€v.€Citizens€for€a€BetterÏEnvironmentóó,€444€U.S.€620,€632,€100€S.Ct.€826,Ï834€(1980),€òòquoted€inóó€òòSecretary€of€State€ofÏMaryland€v.€Joseph€H.€Munson€Co.óó,€467€U.S.Ï947,€959„60,€104€S.Ct.€2839,€2848€(1984).]€ÏòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòMeyer€v.€Grantóó,€486€U.S.€414,€422,€n.Ï5,€108€S.Ct.€1886,€1892,€n.€5,€100€L.Ed.2dÏ425€(1988);€[òòThomas€v.€Collinsóó,€323€U.S.€516,Ï540„41,€65€S.Ct.€315,€327€(1945)].€Thus,Ïwhere,€as€here,€the€component€parts€of€aÏsingle€speech€are€inextricably€intertwined,€weÏcannot€parcel€out€the€speech,€applying€oneÍtest€to€one€phrase€and€another€test€to€anotherÏphrase.€€Such€an€endeavor€would€be€bothÏartificial€and€impractical.€€Therefore,€weÏapply€our€test€for€fully€protected€expression.ÌÌÓÓÌòòRiley€v.€National€Fed'n€of€the€Blindóó,€487€U.S.€at€796,€108€S.Ct.€atÏ2677.€€ÌÌà àStatutes€that€regulate€solicitation,€regulate€speech€onÏthe€basis€of€its€content.€€Therefore,€any€regulation€imposingÏlimitations€on€the€right€to€solicit€charitable€contributions€mustÏwithstand€"exacting€First€Amendment€scrutiny."€€òòId.óó€at€789,€108ÏS.Ct.€at€2673.€€This€Court€has€recognized€that€"all€basic€rights€ofÏfree€speech€are€subject€to€reasonable€regulation,"€òòH€&€L€Messengers,ÏInc.€v.€City€of€Brentwoodóó,€577€S.W.2d€444,€451€(Tenn.€1979),€and€thatÏin€determining€whether€a€regulation€is€reasonable€there€must€be€aÏ"balancing€of€the€freedom€of€expression€against€recognized€competingÏrights."€€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€859€S.W.2d€289,€305€(Tenn.€1993)€(Reid,ÏC.J.,€concurring€and€dissenting).€€The€analysis€to€be€applied€whenÏreviewing€a€challenge€to€a€statute€based€on€an€impermissible€burdenÏof€free€expression€is€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€Regulations€which€restrain€speech€on€theÏbasis€of€its€content€presumptively€violate€theÏFirst€Amendment.€€Such€a€regulation€may€beÏupheld€only€if€the€State€can€prove€that€"theÏburden€placed€on€free€speech€rights€isÏjustified€by€a€compelling€state€interest.€€TheÏleast€intrusive€means€must€be€utilized€by€theÏState€to€achieve€its€goals€and€the€meansÏchosen€must€bear€a€substantial€relation€to€theÏinterest€being€served€by€the€statute€inÏquestion."€€òòBemis€Pentecostal€Church€v.€Stateóó,Ï731€S.W.2d€at€903.ÌÌÓÓÌòòFreeman€v.€Bursonóó,€802€S.W.2d€210,€213€(Tenn.€1990),€òòrev'dóó,€504€U.S.Ï191,€112€S.Ct.€1846€(1992)€(citations€omitted).€ÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€8¼Ôà@ àòòò òEqual€Protection€Analysisóóó óÔ€8XÔÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€provides€that€"[n]o€state€shall€...€deny€to€any€personÏwithin€its€jurisdiction€the€equal€protection€of€the€laws."€€In€twoÏseparate€provisions,€applicable€in€different€circumstances,€our€stateÏConstitution€provides€an€equal€protection€guarantee.€€òòState€v.ÏTesteróó,€879€S.W.2d€823,€827€(Tenn.1994);€òòTennessee€Small€School€Sys.Ïv.€McWherteróó,€851€S.W.2d€139,€152€(Tenn.1993).€€The€first€provisionÏfound€in€Article€1,€Section€8,€known€as€the€"law€of€the€land"€clause,Ïprovides€that€individuals€shall€not€be€deprived€ofÌ€ÌÓÓà8 àœ.€.€.›€liberties€or€privileges,€or€outlawed,€orÏexiled,€or€in€any€manner€destroyed€or€deprivedÏof€...€life,€liberty€or€property€but€by€theÏjudgment€of€...€peers€or€the€law€of€theÏland.ÌÌÌÌÓÓTenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð8.€€The€second€relevant€TennesseeÏconstitutional€provision,€Article€XI,€Section€8,€reads€in€part:ÌÓÓÌÌà8 àGeneral€laws€only€to€be€passed.€„€TheÏLegislature€shall€have€no€power€to€suspend€anyÏgeneral€law€for€the€benefit€of€any€particularÏindividual,€nor€to€pass€any€law€for€theÏbenefit€of€individuals€inconsistent€with€theÏgeneral€laws€of€the€land;€nor€to€pass€any€lawÏgranting€to€any€individual€or€individuals,Ïrights,€privileges,€immunities,€or€exemptionsÏother€than€such€as€may€be,€by€the€same€lawÏextended€to€any€member€of€the€community,€whoÏmay€be€able€to€bring€himself€within€theÏprovisions€of€such€law.ÌÌÓÓÌà àThis€Court€recently€discussed€the€application€of€theÏequal€protection€provisions€of€the€state€and€federal€constitutions€toÏa€state€statute€in€òòBrown€v.€Campbell€County€Bd.€of€Educ.óó,€915€S.W.2dÏ407€(Tenn.€1995),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€_____€U.S.€_____,€116€S.Ct.€1852Ï(1996):€€ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àBoth€the€United€States€and€TennesseeÏConstitutions€guarantee€to€citizens€the€equalÏprotection€of€the€laws....€€ÌÓÓÌÓÓà8 àà àWe€have€consistently€held€that€these€twoÏprovisions€confer€the€same€protections€as€doesÏthe€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution.€òòState€v.€Testeróó,€879€S.W.2d€atÏ827;€òòTennessee€Small€School€Sys.€v.€McWherteróó,Ï851€S.W.2d€at€152.€€Thus,€in€analyzing€equalÏprotection€challenges,€we€have€followed€theÏanalytical€framework€developed€by€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court,€which,€depending€on€theÏnature€of€the€right€asserted,€applies€one€ofÏthree€standards€of€scrutiny:€(1)€strictÏscrutiny,€(2)€heightened€scrutiny,€and€(3)Ïreduced€scrutiny,€applying€the€rational€basisÏtest.€€òòState€v.€Testeróó,€879€S.W.2d€at€828;ÏòòTennessee€Small€School€Sys.€v.€McWherteróó,€851ÏS.W.2d€at€153.ÌÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€at€412„13.ÌÌÓÓà8 à€€€€€Equal€protection€analysis€requires€strictÏscrutiny€of€a€legislative€classification€onlyÏwhen€the€classification€interferes€with€theÏexercise€of€a€ð ðfundamental€rightðð€or€operatesÏto€the€peculiar€disadvantage€of€a€ð ðsuspectÏclass.ðð€€òòSan€Antonio€Independent€SchoolÏDistrict€v.€Rodriguezóó,€411€U.S.€1,€16,€93ÏS.Ct.€1278,€1287,€36€L.Ed.2d€16€(1973).ÌÌÓÓÌòòNewton€v.€Coxóó,€878€S.W.2d€105,€109€(Tenn.€1994).ÌÌà àRegulations€which€discriminate€on€the€basis€of€theÏclassification€of€speakers€may€violate€equal€protection€even€if€theÏregulations€do€not€violate€the€underlying€protected€right.€€However,Ïequal€protection€analysis€in€this€case€begins€with€the€proposition,Ïas€above€discussed,€that€charitable€solicitations€are€fully€protectedÏspeech€under€the€state€and€federal€constitutions.€€Consequently,€theÏstrict€scrutiny€standard€is€also€applicable€to€equal€protectionÏanalysis€in€this€case.€€Regulations€may€classify€charitableÏsolicitations€under€the€strict€scrutiny€standard€only€if€theÏclassification€is€narrowly€tailored€to€serve€a€compelling€stateÏinterest,€even€if€those€regulations€do€not€violate€the€fundamentalÏright€protected€by€the€free€speech€provisions€of€the€constitutions.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòVillage€of€Schaumburg€v.€Citizens€for€a€Better€Envir'tóó,€444€U.S.Ï620,€637,€100€S.Ct.€826,€836€(1980).€€ÌÌà àEqual€protection€requires€that€all€persons€in€similarÏcircumstances€be€treated€alike;€but€it€does€not€"require€things€whichÏare€different€in€fact€or€opinion€to€be€treated€in€law€as€though€theyÏwere€the€same."€€òòTigner€v.€Stateóó,€310€U.S.€141,€147,€60€S.Ct.€879,Ï892€(1940).€€€A€similar€concept€of€equal€protection€is€found€in€theÏTennessee€Constitution.€€òòDoe€v.€Norrisóó,€751€S.W.2d€834,€841€(Tenn.Í1988),€òòState€ex€rel.€Dept.€of€Social€Services€v.€Wrightóó,€736€S.W.2dÏ84,€85„86€(Tenn.€1987),€"The€initial€discretion€to€determine€what€isÏ'different'€and€what€is€'the€same'€resides€in€the€legislatures€of€theÏStates,"€and€the€legislatures€are€allowed€considerable€latitude€inÏestablishing€classifications€and€thereby€determining€what€groups€areÏdifferent€and€what€groups€are€the€same.€€òòPlyler€v.€Doeóó,€457€U.S.€202,Ï216,€102€S.Ct.€2382,€2394€(1982).ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òÔ€8¼ÔAnalysis€of€the€Actóóó óÔ€8XÔÌÌà àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€recognized€in€òòRileyóó€thatÏthe€State's€interest€in€protecting€the€public€from€solicitation€fraudÏis€a€sufficiently€substantial€interest€to€justify€narrowly€tailoredÏregulation.€€However,€in€order€to€justify€the€additional€limitationsÏon€professional€solicitors,€the€State€must€show€that€all€solicitorsÏare€not€"similarly€situated"€and€that€the€differences€requireÏadditional€regulations€in€order€to€accomplish€the€State's€statedÏpurpose€of€protecting€the€public€against€fraud.€€The€State€must€alsoÍshow€that€the€regulation€of€professional€solicitors€under€the€Act€isÏnarrowly€tailored€to€protect€the€public€from€fraud.€€Ìò òòòÌÓ  ÓExemptions€from€the€Actó óóóÌÓ  ÓÌòòò òà àóóó óThe€defendants€contend€that€there€is€no€reasonable€basisÏon€which€to€discriminate€against€the€professional€solicitor€and€that,Ïtherefore,€the€additional€requirements€imposed€on€the€professionalÏsolicitor,€from€which€employees€and€volunteers€of€charitableÏorganizations€are€exempted,€violate€their€constitutional€rights.€€ÌÌà àSection€48„3„501(5)€(Supp.€1989)€defines€professionalÏsolicitors€as:ÌÌÓÓà8 àany€person€who,€for€a€financial€or€otherÏconsideration,€solicits€contributions€for,€orÏon€behalf€of,€a€charitable€organization,Ïwhether€such€solicitation€is€performedÏpersonally€or€through€his€agents,€servants€orÏemployees€or€through€agents,€servants€orÏemployees€specially€employed€by€or€for€aÏcharitable€organization,€who€are€engaged€inÏthe€solicitation€of€contributions€under€theÏdirection€of€such€person,€or€a€person€whoÏplans,€conducts,€manages,€carries€on€orÏadvises€a€charitable€organization€inÏconnection€with€the€solicitation€ofÏcontributions.€€A€salaried€officer€or€employeeÍof€a€charitable€organization€maintaining€aÏpermanent€establishment€within€the€state€shallÏnot€be€deemed€to€be€a€professional€solicitor.€ÏHowever,€any€salaried€officer€or€employee€of€aÏcharitable€organization€that€engages€in€theÏsolicitation€of€contributions€for€compensationÏin€any€manner€for€more€than€one€(l)€charitableÏorganization,€shall€be€deemed€a€professionalÏsolicitor.€€No€attorney,€investment€counselor,Ïor€banker€who€advises€any€person€to€make€aÏcontribution€to€a€charitable€organizationÏshall€be€deemed,€as€a€result€of€such€advice,Ïto€be€a€professional€solicitor.Ì€€ÌÓÓÌœA›€majority€of€the€states€specifically€regulate€"professionalÏsolicitors"€and€exempt€employees€and€volunteers€of€charitableÏorganizations€by€definition.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€Ala.€Code€ðð€13A„9„70€(1994);ÏAriz.€Rev.€Stat.€Ann€ðð€44„6551€(1994);€Ark.€Code€Ann.€ðð€17„41„101Ï(Michie€1995);€Col.€Rev.€Stat.€Ann.€ðð€6„16„103€(West€1992);€Conn.ÏGen.€Stat.€Ann.€ðð€21a„190a€(West€1994);€Ga.€Code€Ann.€ðð€43„17„2Ï(Harrison€1994);€Haw.€Rev.€Stat.€ðð€467B„1€(Supp.€1992);€Ill.€Ann.ÏStat.€ðð€œ225„460/0.0l›€(Smith„Hurd€1993);€Ind.€Code€Ann.€ðð€23„7„8„1Ï(Burns€1994);€Iowa€Code€Ann.€ðð€13C„1€(West€1995);€Kan.€Stat.€Ann.€ððÏ17„1760€œ(1995);›€Ky.€Rev.€Stat.€Ann€ðð€367.650€(Baldwin€Supp.€1995);ÏMe.€Rev.€Stat.€Ann.€tit.€9€ðð€œ5003(10)›€(West€1980);€Mass.€Gen.€LawsÏAnn.€ch.€68€ðð€18€(West€1988);€Mich.€Comp.€Laws€Ann.€ðð€400.272€(l988);ÏMinn.€Stat.€Ann€ðð€309.50€Subd.€6€(West€1996);€Miss.€Code€Ann.€ðð€79„11„501(d)€(1996);€Mo.€Ann.€Stat.€ðð€407.453€(Vernon€1990);€N.H.€Rev.ÏStat.€Ann.€ðð€7:21€(1988);€N.J.€Stat.€Ann.€ðð€45:17A„20€(West€1995);ÏN.Y.€Exec.€Law€ðð€171„a(4)€(McKinney€1993);€N.C.€Gen.€Stat.€ðð€131F„3(8)€(1994);€N.D.€Cent.€Code€ðð€50„22„01(5)€(Supp.€1995);€Ohio€Rev.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€1716.01(I)€(Anderson€1992);€Okla.€Stat.€Ann.€tit.€18€ððÏ552.2€(West€1986);€Or.€Rev.€Stat.€Ann.€ðð€128.801(7)€(1990);€10€œPa.›ÏCons.€Stat.€Ann.€ðð€162.3€(Supp.€1996);€R.I.€Gen.€Laws€ðð€5„53„1(10)Ïœ(1995);›€S.C.€Code€Ann.€ðð€33„55„20(9)€(Law€Co„op€1990);€Utah€Code€Ann.Ïðð€76„10„601(2)€(1995);€9€Vt.€Stat.€Ann.€ðð€2471(8)€(1993);€Va.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€57„48€(Michie€Supp.€1996);€Wash.€Rev.€Code€Ann.€ðð€19.09.020(8)Ï(West€Supp.€1995„96);€W.€œVa.›€Code€ðð€29„19„2(7)€(Supp.€1996);€Wis.ÏStat.€Ann.€ðð€440.41(7)€(West€Supp.€1995).ÌÌà àCharitable€corporations€are€required€by€the€Act€toÏregister€with€the€Secretary€of€State€and€submit€reports€of€theirÏsolicitation€activity.€€The€most€significant€justification€forÏimposing€additional€requirements€on€professional€solicitors€under€theÏAct€is€that€charitable€organizations€are€regulated€under€otherÏstatutes€while€professional€solicitors€are€not.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€48„3„504€(Supp.€1989).€€òòSee€alsoóó,€Tennessee€œNonprofit›€CorporationÏAct,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€48„51„701€(1995);€ðð€48„53„104€(1995);€ðð€48„64„301€(1995);€Quo€warranto€actions,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„35„102€(1980);ÏAdministration€of€Charitable€Trusts,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€35„9„101€toÏ35„9„106€(1991);€Federal€tax€reporting€requirements,€26€U.S.C.€ðð€6033Ï(Supp.€1996).ÌÌà àIn€addition,€professional€solicitors€may€not€be€directlyÏsupervised€by€the€charities€on€whose€behalf€they€solicit,€they€haveÏno€fiduciary€obligation€to€the€charitable€organizations,€and€usuallyÏhave€great€discretion€in€conducting€a€solicitation€campaign€andÏhandling€the€contributions€paid€to€the€solicitor€for€the€benefit€ofÏthe€charitable€organization.€€In€this€case,€the€agreement€between€theÏdefendants€and€the€Fraternal€Order€of€Police€No.€35€authorized€theÏdefendants€to€train€and€supervise€the€solicitors,€conduct€theÏsolicitations€and€control€the€funds€received.€€This€arrangement€wasÏin€sharp€contrast€to€the€understanding€expressed€by€prospectiveÏdonors€in€the€affidavits€filed€in€this€case.€€The€record€establishesÏthat€professional€solicitors€and€the€employees€and€volunteers€ofÏcharitable€organizations€are€not€similarly€situated€and€that€theÏprovisions€of€the€Act€exempting€these€entities€from€the€definition€ofÏa€professional€solicitor€are€narrowly€tailored€to€serve€a€compellingÏState€interest,€the€protection€of€the€public€from€solicitation€fraud.€ÍThe€classifications€made€in€Sections€48„3„501(5)€do€not€violate€theÏfreedom€of€speech€or€equal€protection€provisions€of€the€state€orÏfederal€constitutions.œ× ƒB ××  ×›Ìò òòòÌÓ  ÓSolicitation€Notice,€Solicitation€Literature€and€TextÌÓ  Óó óóóÌà àThe€provisions€of€the€Act€requiring€the€filing€ofÏsolicitation€notices,€solicitation€literature€and€the€text€of€oralÏsolicitations€do€not€impermissibly€burden€freedom€of€speech€and€areÏnarrowly€tailored€to€accomplish€a€compelling€state€interest,€theÏprevention€of€charitable€solicitation€fraud.€€The€filing€ofÏsolicitation€campaign€notices€pursuant€to€Section€48„3„513(g)(4),Ïserves€the€purposes€of€educating€the€donating€public€and€allowingÏregulators€to€monitor€solicitation€activity.€€This€campaign€noticeÏrequires€a€statement€of€the€location€from€which€the€campaign€is€to€beÏconducted,€the€names€and€addresses€of€the€persons€who€will€beÏsoliciting€contributions€and€the€identification€of€all€bank€accountsÏwhere€the€contributions€made€will€be€deposited.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÍ48„3„513(g)(4)€(Supp.€1989).€This€is€minimal€information€required€ofÏprofessional€solicitors,€who€are€independent€contractors€and€oftenÏhave€no€permanent€connection€with€the€community€in€which€theyÏsolicit,€and€who€are€not€otherwise€accountable€to€the€public€or€theÏstate.€€Consequently,€this€is€not€an€impermissible€burden€on€freeÏspeech.ÌÌà àThese€provisions€of€the€act€do€not€violate€equalÏprotection€because€charitable€organizations€which€solicit€by€theirÏemployees€or€volunteers€are€otherwise€regulated,€as€Ìpreviously€discussed.€ÌÌà@ àò òòòDisclosure€Requirementsóóó óÌÌà àThe€defendants€contend€that€the€Court€of€Appeals€erred€inÏholding€that€the€disclosure€requirements€of€the€Act€do€not€violateÏthe€constitutional€provisions€protecting€free€speech.€€Section€48„3„513(j)(1)€provides€that€a€professional€solicitor,ÌÌÓÓÔ€6Ôà8 àÔ€8Ôdisclose€at€the€point€of€solicitation€his€nameÏas€on€file€with€the€secretary,€the€name€of€anyÏcompany€or€corporation€for€which€he€is€anÏagent€or€employee€and€that€such€person€orÍgroup€is€a€ð ðprofessional€solicitor,ðð€who€willÏreceive€as€costs,€expenses€and€fees€a€portionÏof€the€solicited€funds€raised€through€theÏsolicitation€campaign.ÌÌÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€48„3„513(j)(1)€(Supp.1989).ÌÌÓÓà àThe€requirement€that€the€professional€solicitorÏdisclosure€his€or€her€status€as€a€professional€solicitor€was€not€anÏissue€in€òòRileyóó,€however,€that€Court€observed€that€"an€unchallengedÏportion€of€the€disclosure€law€requires€professional€fundraisers€toÏdisclose€their€professional€status€to€potential€donors,€therebyÏgiving€notice€that€at€least€a€portion€of€the€money€contributed€willÏbe€retained."€€òòRileyóó,€487€U.S.€at€799,€108€S.Ct.€at€2679.€€The€CourtÏnoted:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€Act,€as€written,€requires€the€fundraiserÏto€disclose€his€or€her€employerððs€name€andÏaddress.€€Arguably,€this€may€not€clearlyÏconvey€to€the€donor€that€the€solicitor€isÏemployed€by€a€for„profit€organization,€forÏexample,€where€the€employerððs€name€isÏ"Charitable€Fundraisers€of€America."€€However,Ïnothing€in€this€opinion€should€be€taken€toÏsuggest€that€the€State€may€not€require€aÏfundraiser€to€disclose€unambiguously€his€orÏher€professional€status.€€On€the€contrary,Ïsuch€a€narrowly€tailored€requirement€wouldÏwithstand€First€Amendment€scrutiny.ÌÌÓÓÌòòIdóó.€at€799,€n.€11,€108€S.Ct.€at€2679,€n.€11.€€The€Court,€in€effect,Ïacknowledged€the€lower€court's€conclusion€that€the€mandatedÏdisclosure€of€a€professional€solicitor's€status,€is€notÏunconstitutional.€€The€lower€court€in€òòRileyóó€found:€ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€state€does€have€an€interest€in€providingÏits€citizens€with€as€much€information€asÏpossible€concerning€the€amount€of€theirÏcontributions€that€actually€reach€theÏdesignated€charity.€€Nevertheless,€regulationsÏwhich€involve€first€amendment€speech€must€beÏdrawn€with€narrow€specificity.ÌÌà8 àà àThe€requirement€that€a€professionalÏsolicitor€give€his€name€and€the€name€andÏaddress€of€his€employer€is€not€burdensome.ÌÌÓÓÌòòNational€Fed'n€of€the€Blind€v.€Rileyóó,€635€F.Supp.€256,€261€(E.D.ÏN.C.€1986).ÌÌà àIn€òòWRG€œEnter.,›€Inc.€v.€Crowellóó,€the€relevant€issue€wasÏwhether€a€total€ban€on€the€solicitation€of€contributions€by€telephoneÏby€professional€solicitors€violated€the€freedom€of€speech€provisionsÏof€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€This€Court€held:ÌÌÓÓà8 àProhibition€of€telephone€solicitations€is€notÏthe€least€restrictive€means€available€to€theÍState€in€seeking€to€protect€its€citizens€fromÏfraud.€€"Where,€as€here,€a€statute€imposes€aÏdirect€restriction€on€protected€FirstÏAmendment€activity,€and€where€the€defect€inÏthe€statute€is€that€the€means€chosen€toÏaccomplish€the€Stateððs€objectives€are€tooÏimprecise,€so€that€in€all€its€applications€theÏstatute€creates€an€unnecessary€risk€ofÏchilling€free€speech,€the€statute€is€properlyÏsubject€to€facial€attack."€ÌÌÓÓÌòòWRG€œEnter.,›€Inc.€v.€Crowellóó,€758€S.W.2d€at€217€(quoting€òòMunsonóó,€467ÏU.S.€at€967„68,€104€S.Ct.€at€2852„53).ÌÌà àThe€Act,€as€amended,€does€not€impose€a€total€ban€onÏtelephone€solicitation.€€It€only€requires€that€the€solicitor€provideÏminimum€information€about€the€relationship€of€the€solicitor€to€theÏcharitable€organization€and€its€cause.€€Though€the€requirement€that€aÏprofessional€solicitor€disclose€his€status€and€that€the€charity€willÏnot€retain€all€of€the€funds€is€a€restraint€on€free€expression,€it€isÏa€small€burden€on€the€solicitor,€and€is€directly€related€to€theÏobjectives€of€letting€the€potential€donor€know€that€he€or€she€is€notÏdealing€with€a€volunteer€and€that€the€entire€purchase€price€of€theÏjellies€will€not€be€received€by€the€charitable€organization.€€NoÏlesser€restrictive€means€of€effectively€achieving€this€goal€has€beenÍpresented€to€the€Court.× ƒC ××  ×€€The€conclusion€is€that€the€disclosureÏprovisions€set€forth€in€Section€48„3„513(j)(1)€do€not€violate€theÏfreedom€of€speech€provisions€of€the€federal€and€state€constitutions.€€€ÌÌà@ àòòò òRegistration€Fees€and€Bond€Requirementsóóó óÌÌà àThe€defendants€next€challenge€the€fee€and€bondÏrequirements€of€the€Act€as€the€imposition€of€a€tax€for€the€privilegeÏof€engaging€in€protected€speech.€€As€stated€previously,€the€ActÏimposed€a€$1,000€(now€$800)€annual€registration€fee€and€a€$10,000Ï(now€$25,000)€bond€on€professional€solicitors:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà à(a)€€No€person€shall€act€as€aÏprofessional€solicitor€for€a€charitableÏorganization€subject€to€the€provisions€of€thisÏpart€unless€he€has€first€registered€with€theÏsecretary€of€state.€€Registration€shallÏinclude€the€filing€of€a€complete€application,Ïbond€and€filing€fee.€...ÌÌà8 àà à(b)€€Every€person€shall,€before€beingÏemployed€in€any€manner€whatsoever€within€thisÍstate€by€a€professional€solicitor,€makeÏapplication€to€the€secretary€of€state€for€aÏcertificate€as€an€employee.€...€€The€annualÏfee€for€an€employee€certificate€shall€be€tenÏdollars€($10.00).ÌÌà8 àà à(c)€The€applicant€shall,€at€the€time€ofÏmaking€application,€file€with€and€haveÏapproved€by€the€secretary€of€state,€a€bond€inÏwhich€the€applicant€shall€be€the€principalÏobligor€in€the€sum€of€ten€thousand€dollarsÏ($10,000)€with€one€(1)€or€more€sureties€....ÌÌà8 àà à(d)€The€annual€registration€fee€forÏevery€person€who€is€a€professional€solicitorÏin€this€state€shall€be€one€thousand€dollarsÏ($1,000).ÌÓÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€48„3„507€€(Supp.€1989).€€The€Court€of€Appeals€heldÏthat€these€fees€were€impermissible€license€taxes€on€the€privilege€ofÏspeech€in€violation€of€the€constitutional€provisions€guaranteeingÏfreedom€of€speech.€€The€court€rejected€the€State's€argument€thatÏprofessional€solicitors€are€more€likely€to€defraud€or€mislead€theÏpublic€than€employees€and€volunteers€of€charitable€organizations.€ÏIts€conclusion€was€based€on€the€finding€that€the€additional€feesÏimposed€on€professional€solicitors€were€not€justified€as€a€means€ofÏdefraying€the€cost€of€regulating€charitable€solicitations.ÌÌà àLicensing€fees€imposed€upon€businesses€that€affectÏexpression,€ð ðmust€be€nominal€and€imposed€only€as€a€regulatory€measureÍto€defray€the€expenses€of€policing€such€activities.ðð€€òòEllwest€StereoÏTheater,€Inc.€v.€Boneróó,€718€F.€Supp.€1553,€1574€(M.D.€Tenn.€1989);Ïòòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòMurdock€v.€Commonwealth€of€Pennsylvaniaóó,€319€U.S.€105,€113„14,€63€S.Ct.€870,€875€(1943).€€Ìà àIn€òòMurdockóó,€where€the€challenged€ordinance€provided€thatÏa€license€be€purchased€by€persons€canvassing€or€soliciting€within€theÏcity,€the€Court€stated,€"The€power€to€tax€the€exercise€of€a€privilegeÏis€the€power€to€control€or€suppress€its€enjoyment."€€òòIdóó.€at€112,€63ÏS.Ct.€at€874.€€The€licensing€requirement€in€that€case€was€declaredÏinvalid:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[T]he€present€ordinance€is€not€narrowly€drawnÏto€safeguard€the€people€of€the€community€inÏtheir€homes€against€the€evils€ofÏsolicitations.€€As€we€have€said,€it€is€notÏmerely€a€registration€ordinance€calling€for€anÏidentification€of€the€solicitors€so€as€to€giveÏthe€authorities€some€basis€for€investigatingÏstrangers€coming€into€the€community.€€And€theÏfee€is€not€a€nominal€one,€imposed€as€aÏregulatory€measure€and€calculated€to€defrayÏthe€expense€of€protecting€those€on€the€streetsÏand€at€home€against€the€abuses€of€solicitors.Ï...€€The€ordinance€is€not€narrowly€drawn€toÏprevent€or€control€abuses€or€evils€arisingÏfrom€that€activity.€€Rather,€it€sets€aside€theÏresidential€areas€as€a€prohibited€zone,€entryÏof€which€is€denied€petitioners€unless€the€taxÏis€paid.ÌÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€at€116„17,€63€S.Ct.€at€876„77€(citations€œomitted)›œ.›ÌThat€Court€noted,€however,ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€constitutional€difference€between€[aÏregulatory€measure€to€defray€the€expenses€ofÏpolicing€the€activities€in€question]€and€a€taxÏon€the€exercise€of€a€federal€right€has€longÏbeen€recognized.€€While€a€state€may€not€exactÏa€license€tax€for€the€privilege€of€carrying€onÏinterstate€commerce€it€may,€for€example,€exactÏa€fee€to€defray€the€cost€of€purely€localÏregulations€in€spite€of€the€fact€that€thoseÏregulations€incidentally€affect€commerce.ÌÌÓÓÌòòIdóó.€at€114,€n.€8,€63€S.Ct.€at€875,€n.€8€(citations€œomitted)›œ;›€€œòòseeóó›Ïœòòe.g.óó,€òòBroadway›€Books,€Inc.€v.€Robertsóó,€642€F.€Supp.€486,€493€(E.D.ÏTenn.€1986)€(A€$500€annual€license€fee€for€adult„orientedÏestablishments€was€held€to€be€constitutional€because€the€cityÏdemonstrated€that€the€yearly€costs€of€processing€each€licenseÏapplication€and€enforcing€the€provisions€of€a€regulatory€ordinanceÏwere€comparable€to€the€fee.).€€Ìà àThus,€the€fees€are€consistent€with€the€guarantees€of€freeÏexpression€and€equal€protection€if€the€State€can€prove€that€the€feesÏare€no€more€than€that€amount€necessary€to€pay€for€the€administrativeÏand€enforcement€costs€of€the€Act.€€òòSeeóó€òòCox€v.€New€Hampshireóó,€312€U.S.Ï569,€577,€61€S.Ct.€762,€766€(1941).ÌÌà àThe€record€does€not€contain€sufficient€evidence€on€whichÏa€determination€of€the€costs€of€administering€and€enforcing€the€ActÏcan€be€made.€€There€is€not€sufficient€evidence€in€the€record€on€whichÏto€determine€if€the€fees€charged€bear€any€reasonable€relationship€toÏthe€costs€of€administering€and€enforcing€the€Act.€€This€is€a€disputedÏquestion€of€material€fact,€consequently€summary€judgment€cannot€beÏgranted€on€this€issue.€€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€215€(Tenn.Ï1993).€€This€factual€issue€can€be€determined€on€remand.€€Ìà àLikewise,€there€is€not€sufficient€evidence€in€the€recordÏon€which€to€determine€if€the€bond€required€by€œSection›€48„3„507(c)Ïprovides€any€protection€to€the€public€or€if€the€costs€of€the€bondÏbear€any€reasonable€relationship€to€the€costs€of€administering€andÏenforcing€the€Act.€€This,€also,€is€a€disputed€issue€of€material€factÏand€precludes€the€entry€of€summary€judgment€with€regard€to€theÏrequirement€of€a€bond.Ì€ÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€8¼Ôòòò òConclusionó óóóÔ€8XÔà àÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€conclusion€is€that€the€challenged€provisions€of€theÏAct,€except€those€sections€imposing€fees€and€a€bond,€sectionsÏ507(a)(b)(c)(d),€do€not€violate€the€freedom€of€speech€or€the€equalÏprotection€provisions€of€the€State€or€Federal€Constitution.ÌÌà àDismissal€of€the€pleadings€alleging€violations€ofÏSections€507€(a)(b)(c)(d)€is€reversed,€and€the€case€is€remanded€forÏfurther€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÌà àCosts€are€taxed€one„half€against€the€State€and€one„halfÏagainst€the€defendants.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àReid,€J.ÌÌConcur:ÌÌBirch,€C.J.,€Drowota,€Anderson,€Ì€€€€€and€White,€JJ.