And and also, Jeff, curious if you in having these conversations, have you how how convincing you've been with folks who argue the opposite?

Yeah.

So I that is the argument.

And, you know, it has a certain plausibility and it had a certain plausibility in 1976 before we saw the consequences.

But the failure of the argument, I think, is that there is a difference between money and speech.

Yes, money is needed to.

broadcast to promote speech, to get information out.

Is that the only route at this juncture?

So the argument you hear from the defenders of this, uh, says simply, "The First Amendment protects political speech, and if I want to spend my own money to convince my fellow Americans to vote a certain way, why shouldn't that be protected by the First Amendment? Isn't that political speech?" And, uh, curious what your response is and, and also, Jeff, curious if you've, i-in having these conversations, uh, have you, uh, how, how convincing you've been, uh, with folks, uh, who argue the opposite.

Yeah.

So I, uh, that is the argument, and, you know, it, it has a certain plausibility, and it had a certain plausibility in 1976 before we saw the consequences.

But the failure of the argument, I think, is that there is a difference between money and speech.

Yes, money is needed to broadcast, to promote speech, to get information out.

So there are a whole bunch of lines that need to be drawn, like, because I think intuitively we kinda know that.

Like, even if that theory is true, doesn't mean that- All money from all sources is just fine.

So let's talk solutions here, and I guess I'd begin with asking if Congress or any state today, given what the judges have ruled, wanted to impose any tougher limits on campaign spending, how much authority would they really have? I- is, is there anything they could do or ultimately, you, your proposal is a constitutional amendment, is that the only route at this juncture?