doubt that the ad calls for a vote against the candidate. We disagree with this approach. Buckley intended to protect issue advocacy which discusses and debates issues in the context of an election. Issue advocacy thus does not become express advocacy based upon timing. The right to freely discuss issues in the context of an election, including public issues as they relate to candidates for office, is precisely the kind of issue advocacy the Court recognized was beyond the reach of regulation. The Court explicitly observed that “[c\andidates, especially incumbents, are intimately tied to public issues involving legislative proposals and governmental actions.” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 42 (emphasis added). See Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 479 U.S. at 249 (unanimous Court on this point) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). In a recent case involving
holding that a prior administrative decision actually decided ultimate factual issues that are essential to plaintiffs present claims and that issue preclusion therefore bars the relitigation of those issues recognizing that issue advocacy may include discussion of issues and candidates recognizing rule lls central goal of deterrence but noting concerns that it will spawn satellite litigation and chill vigorous advocacy holding that an applicants failure to include specific issues in his petition for review results in abandonment of any claims of error he might have raised regarding the decisions related to those issues holding that failure to include an issue in statement of issues did not bar the appellant from raising the issue in its opening brief