is helpful to examine whether the challenged limits, considered in isolation, are likely to survive First Amendment scrutiny. The Act’s $5,000 limit on an individual’s contributions to a candidate and the $50,000 limit on a PAC’s contributions to a candidate are typical, higher than some and lower than others, of the limits imposed by other States. See National Conference of State Legislators, State Limits on Contributions to Candidates, 2011-12 election cycle (“State Contribution Limits Survey”) (Sept. 30, 2011), available at www.ncsl.org/Portals/l/documents/ legismgt/Limits_to_Candidates_2011-2012. pdf (last visited Oct. 5, 2012). Those limits are routine campaign finance regulations of the sort that the Supreme Court regularly upholds. See Beaumont, 539 U.S. at 163, 123 S.Ct. 2200 (<HOLDING>); Nixon v. Shrink Mo. Gov’t PAC, 528 U.S. 377,
holding that a corporations principal place of business for determining diversity jurisdiction under 28 usc  1332c1 is the nerve center meaning the corporations headquarters or the place where a corporations officers direct control and coordinate the corporations activities holding that while a state statute granted a foreign corporation the rights and privileges enjoyed by domestic corporations it did not transform such corporations into domestic or resident corporations recognizing that corporations have first amendment speech rights but declining to address the abstract question whether corporations have the full measure of rights that individuals enjoy under the first amendment recognizing a cause of action against a corporations directors brought by a creditor for the fraudulent misrepresentation of the corporations financial condition holding that a complete ban on contributions to federal candidates by corporations may consistent with the first amendment be applied to nonprofit advocacy corporations