Final answer:
The constitutionality of an Oregon statute prohibiting advertising by liquor stores depends on several factors, including First Amendment protections and how the prohibition aligns with public interests. It would be scrutinized under the Central Hudson test and a specific ruling by a court.
Step-by-step explanation:
If Oregon passed a statute that prohibited liquor stores from engaging in any kind of advertising, one would have to assess whether this statute is constitutional or not. Based on the information provided, it appears that while businesses do have some protections under the First Amendment, the government has the power to enforce regulations on commercial speech, especially if the speech can be deemed misleading or in relation to public health concerns. In this case, the statute might be comparable to laws requiring nutritional information on food and beverages or warning labels on tobacco products which have been upheld by the courts.
However, the total prohibition of advertising by liquor stores could potentially be challenged under the First Amendment if it is seen as an overly broad restriction on commercial speech. It would have to pass the Central Hudson test, a four-part test used by the courts to determine the constitutionality of regulations on commercial speech. The final determination of whether the statute is constitutional or not would likely depend on a court ruling, taking into account how well the statute advances a substantial governmental interest and whether it does so in a way that is not more extensive than necessary.