But I just want you to walk, walk us through, if you can remember, the hypothetical that you offered to get the court to see why the fact that the expenditures are independent does not mean that the contribution is independent or the contribution doesn't create a risk of corruption.

Well, uh, thank you for those kind words, Larry.

And, and I do wanna, again, uh, credit Professor Alschuler for having originated the argument.

Um, the, the basic issue is that, uh, Citizens United said that independent expenditures can't corrupt, and that is not something that we were challenging or questioning, uh, in this case, uh, nor, uh, are you in Dinner Table Action.

But what that really means is when a super PAC makes independent expenditures, what that's saying is that the political professionals who run the super PAC, these are people who are by and large anonymous.

You know, in the federal system, uh, they probably, you know, live in northern Virginia, um, maybe, you know, in, uh, the Maryland suburbs.

Uh, they come up through the ranks of, you know, political, uh, campaigns and, and professionals.

Nobody ever questions it." So how do you understand why they got it, they got it so completely wrong and why that might be a reason for the court to reconsider it today?