Springtuckian: You can have your opinions, and I could be wrong in my predictions.

But the fact is that the Oregon Supreme Court (and more recently the U.S. Supreme Court) has consistently interpreted "free speech" very broadly. Money given to political candidates is protected free speech—so why shouldn't money given to panhandlers? All those nude dancers in Springfield are also expressing their free speech rights—yes, nude dancing is free speech in Oregon. So it is pretty clear that courts *WILL* determine that passing money (or "any item of property") is a form of speech. The legal questions will revolve around how Springfield is trying to restrict some kinds of speech but not others, in what it believes / hopes is a content-free, constitutional manner. History suggests their ordinance will be overturned.

That's not to say that giving money to panhandlers is good social policy. It's just to say that the Springfield can't make it illegal for individuals to choose to do so.