And yet you're finding there's some serious opinions here about money and politics.

Oh, there's some very serious opinions, and, uh, and, and thanks for having me on.

It's great to be here and, and with John.

Um, you know, John's data really lay it out, uh, on, on both of your points.

Uh, one, there are very serious, uh, concerns about money in politics, and two, there's alienation and a sense of hopelessness.

And that's because, uh, th- th- as, as these voters show, everybody now pretty much knows that if you're a billionaire, if you run a global corporation, if maybe you run a big union, you might get some representation and something out of government.

But if you're an ordinary voter, you don't have much chance.

But what's your sense in terms of the, uh, what will be one of the most wide open elections we've ever seen? What will be the sort of degree of enthusiasm or engagement perhaps of these younger voters, uh, to, to, to go in on this race to, as we start looking beyond, you know, the Trump era, which for so many of them is all they've ever known?

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?