Is that right? Is that the essence of how you guys want to get us to see it? Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, again, it goes to this exactly this idea.

So I think going back to Citizens United, you really hit the nail on the head.

There is a difference between the way that the Supreme Court deals with expenditures and contributions.

And the Supreme Court has said, well, when it's an expenditure that is closer to the heart of political speech, and we're going to provide that with more protections.

and we're going to scrutinize more carefully any efforts limited.

This is not saying I agree with that, but that's what the Supreme Court is saying.

I mean, that is as clear a quid pro quo as it could be.