If SCOTUS can develop a test to determine when the government is allowed to violate 1A, then they can loosen that test's requirements. They won't, of course, but I don't see why they couldn't, if they wanted to.

Well, that’s great!

> Republican Sen. Susan Collins says Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh told her he views the landmark abortion rights ruling Roe v. Wade as "settled law."

Ah.

Nobody is surprised that a Republican or Democratic nominee might have a strong take regarding Roe v Wade, because it's practically a litmus test for nomination. No nominee has ever been asked about Central Hudson v PSC NY. There's a reason for that. It's been 50 years and 3 different distinct courts and the only thing that seems to have happened with this body of case law is that protections for commercial speech have gotten stronger.

> Nobody is surprised that a Republican or Democratic nominee might have a strong take regarding Roe v Wade, because it's practically a litmus test for nomination.

The point is they'll openly say "settled law" and then immediately unsettle it. "Corporations get free speech" is a concept granted over time (and fairly recently) by the courts, not explicitly laid out in the Constitution. (Doubly so at the state level; it wasn't until the 1920s that SCOTUS even said the First Amendment applied to states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York)

> It's been 50 years…

Right about the same amount of time Roe v. Wade stuck around.

Look, this current Court certainly isn't gonna ban advertising; if anything, it's more likely to permit government-required advertisements right into our Neuralink headsets… but a future Court could easily say fast food advertising or social media for minors is just as bad as cigarette advertising was.