Reply #21: my intent wasn't to raise fear.

[Statistical]

Rather to indicate that if the govt loses it will be because of strict scrutiny not being applied.

Which means while a blanket prohibition all all funds for all ads by all corporations may be unconstitutional it doesn't mean a better definied law would be.

Can't ban all firearms but you can ban felons from having firearms
Can't ban all speech in a movie theater but can make speech that causes a panic/threatens public safety illegal

If the govt loses it isn't a lose and lose everything kind of verdict (as most fear on DU) but rather a "the govt went too far and needs to reign in the scope of the prohibition" loss.

How to word the law to be "narrowly tailored" and "least restrictive" while still accomplishing the goal that is the question and sadly one I have no answer for.