Check out this University of Pennsylvania Law Review article:
With Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 132 S. Ct. 2334 (2014), the Supreme Court set the stage for litigation challenging state statutes that punish false statements in political campaigns. In its decision, the Court did not decide the merits of whether a state statute (Ohio’s, in Susan B. Anthony List) was unconstitutional. Instead, the Court adjudicated solely the preliminary issue of justiciability: whether standing and ripeness doctrines should prevent courts from adjudicating a political organization’s preenforcement challenge to Ohio’s statute. In the end, the Court’s unanimous opinion held that standing and ripeness considerations would not stand in the way of such preenforcement challenges. The decision paves the way for a wave of legal challenges—challenges that, in light of the Court’s recent decision in United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (2012), may spell the end for state statutes banning false statements in political campaigns.