S.Ct. 2191, 156 L.Ed.2d 148 (2003). An amendment will not be invalidated for overbreadth simply because the plaintiff alleges that there are some impermissible applications. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 800, 104 S.Ct. 2118. We require substantial overbreadth because of the purpose of the overbreadth doctrine-"the interest in preventing an invalid statute from inhibiting the speech of third parties who are not before the Court." Id. The Supreme Court has not been consistent in addressing overbreadth under Buckley's "closely tailored" standard. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly analyzed, and in some cases invalidated, statutes based on their overbroad limits on campaign contributions. See McConnell, 540 U.S. at 281-82, 124 S$.Ct. 619 (Rehnquist, C.J., plurality opinion) (<HOLDING>); Buckley, 424 U.S. at 25, 96 S.Ct. 612
holding that such a disclaimer is not sufficient to avoid a conflict with the first amendment recognizing in criminal case exception to standing rules where statute involving first amendment freedoms is challenged on vagueness grounds holding a contribution restriction for minors was invalid because the statute was not closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of first amendment freedoms holding that where first amendment freedoms are not infringed by the statute a vagueness claim must be evaluated as the statute is applied to the facts of the case recognizing a right to contribution