the test in Wisconsin Right to Life is not vague, then neither is § 100.22(b). Fourth and finally, Real Truth argues that § 100.22(b) is vague because the district court and the Commission disagreed as to whether Real Truth’s “Change” ad was the functional equivalent of express advocacy. But this fact proves little because cases that fall close to the line will inevitably arise when applying § 100.22(b). This kind of difficulty is simply inherent in any kind of standards-based test. Cf. United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 306, 128 S.Ct. 1830, 170 L.Ed.2d 650 (2008) (“Close cases can be imagined under virtually any statute. The problem that poses is [not] addressed ... by the doctrine of vagueness”); United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396, 399, 50 S.Ct. 167, 74 L.Ed. 508 (1930) (<HOLDING>). If anything, the disagreement to which Real
holding  750337 facially vague holding that person challenging statute as facially vague must show that the challenged law is unconstitutional in every possible application holding that a proposed termination is the very type of discrete act   identified  as separate actionable unlawful employment practices holding that there is no serious argument that the especially heinous cruel or depraved aggravating factor is not facially vague holding that the federal corrupt practices act was not facially vague because wherever the law draws a line there will be cases very near each other on opposite sides