Practically speaking yes, but in reality no. The Constitution says what it says, and means what it meant when passed, or when amended as applicable. The Constitution alone is the standard, not what some politicians or political appointees say about it. It's not as if it is some big theoretical exposition, written in impenetrable legalese. It's not, it's written in clear standard(for the late 18th century) English. Very little of it is at all ambiguous. Congress shall make no law.. and right of the people shall not be infringed, seem awfully clear to me, but apparently not to the Federal courts, nor the Congress, nor the President. All of whom took oaths to support and defend it.
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
As I understand it, the CFR does not limit any person's right to speak, nor does it infringe on the freedom of the press, in the plain 18th Century meaning of those words.
It does limit campaign contribution and television and radio broadcast advertisements. I don't see anything in the clear, standard words of 1st amendment about those.
And it gives authority to our elected officials to write laws and it gives authority to the SC to override them if it thinks they are unconstitutional. That is what the document says. Do you wish to ignore all the parts except for the BOR ?