Act a combination formed for the purpose and with the effect of raising, depressing, fixing, pegging, or stabilizing the price[s] of a commodity in interstate or foreign commerce is illegal per se”; and in Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers Association v. United States, 234 U.S. 600, 606, 34 S.Ct. 951, 952, 58 L.Ed. 1490 (1914) the Court stated: “. . .it appears that the defendant associations have for their object, among other things, the adoption of ways and means to protect such trade and to prevent the wholesale dealers from intruding therein.” Other group boycott cases also indicate that the Court must consider whether or not the alleged group boycott had the requisite anticompetitive purpose. Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 65 S.Ct. 1416, 89 L.Ed. 2013 (1945) (<HOLDING>); Radiant Burners Inc. v. Peoples Gas, Light &
holding that a bylaw was plainly designed in the interest of preventing competition holding that citys interest in preventing fraud could not justify municipal ordinance against fortunetelling recognizing the states interest in preventing deception of consumers holding that defendants interest in preventing the impairment of its performance outweighed plaintiffs interest in disseminating racist materials anonymously through the mail holding that the government interest in preventing crime is compelling