Is the statute that compels attorneys to subsidize Oregon State Bar's political and ideological speech subject to 'exacting' scrutiny?

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court has held that “exacting” First Amendment scrutiny applies to laws that force public employees to subsidize the speech and political activities of public sector unions. Janus v. AFSCME, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2477 (2018). The Court has also made clear that attorneys regulated under state law are subject to “the same constitutional rule” that applies to public employees. Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1, 13 (1990). Oregon requires attorneys to join and pay dues to the Oregon State Bar as a condition of practicing law. The Oregon State Bar uses members’ mandatory dues to fund political and ideological speech regarding issues of law and public policy. Is the statute that compels attorneys to subsidize Oregon State Bar’s political and ideological speech subject to “exacting” scrutiny?