Paul owns real property with two billboards on it next to a freeway that runs through the town of Stevens Creek. The billboards are visible from the road. Paul has rented one of the billboards to Whole Foods, Inc. a commercial grocery retail chain. The other billboard is rented to Mary, a local politician running for re-election. A local ordinance (law) in Stevens Creek prohibits off-premises signs that are visible from the freeway. The ordinance was adopted for several reasons: to keep the area visually attractive; to maintain property values; and to reduce the risk of distracted drivers causing accidents on the freeway. Stevens Creek sends cease and desist letters to Whole Foods and to Mary, ordering them to remove their signs from the billboards. If Whole Foods and Mary sue Stevens Creek seeking an injunction to prevent the town from enforcing the ordinance because it violates their First Amendment rights, which of the following is the most likely outcome?
(a) Whole Foods is more likely to win and Mary is more likely to lose because commercial speech is entitled to a higher degree of First Amendment protection than political speech.
(b) Mary is more likely to win and Whole Foods is more likely to lose because political speech is entitled to a higher degree of First Amendment protection that commercial speech.
(c) Whole Foods and Mary will both win because the Constitution preempts local laws that attempt to regulate speech.
(d) Mary and Whole Foods will both lose because local governments may regulate the time, place and manner of speech without regard to the nature or content of the speech.
(e) If Paul sues Stevens Creek for acting in bad faith and causing him to lose income from his billboards he will win.