Whether incumbents and candidates for political office have standing to assert First and Fourteenth Amendment claims

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether incumbents and candidates for political office have standing to assert First and Fourteenth Amendment claims regarding: 1) pure campaign speech restrictions that prohibit others from soliciting support to their campaign, and 11) combined legislative ethics and campaign finance restrictions that prohibit certain other persons from associating with those campaigns and candidates through, among other things, campaign donations? 2. Whether this Court should overrule the Buckley v. Valeo “closely drawn” scrutiny framework and apply strict scrutiny to First and Fourteenth Amendment claims involving combined legislative ethics and campaign finance restrictions which are, in actuality, speech restrictions? 3. Even if Buckley v. Valeo is not overruled, should strict scrutiny nevertheless be applied where campaign speech restrictions as well as combined legislative ethics and campaign finance restrictions violate fundamental rights, and otherwise make impermissible classifications based on the exercise of fundamental rights? 4. Whether the challenged Kentucky campaign speech restrictions and combined legislative ethics and campaign finance restrictions survive whatever level of scrutiny the Court deems applicable under the First and Fourteenth Amendments?