Authority. But they dont know who the money who is funding americans for greener grass. Im in favor of that. One of the things as well, we have talked and senator excuse me, just continue stevens talked about a level Playing Field. One of the things that concerns me is the level Playing Field is moving very much away from the candidates of both parties and in a host of ways. Candidates have to raise money in 2,600 increments, and groups that now can spend untold amounts that can pour it in at the end of the campaign when a candidate doesnt have an opportunity to answer those messages, have now, i think, an influence. Its not that money will necessarily be spent. The threat of spending unless something is done is enough. Many cases we will see actions taken by government behind closed doors or by changing amendments that nobody will know about without a dime being spent under these circumstances as anonymous groups apply that threat. Its not a good way to run business in a democracy. Mr. Potter, i felt one of the most interesting moments today was when senator cruz said unlimited contributions and immediate disclosure. React to that concept. I think there are two different issues here. One is the idea of full and immediate disclosure, which is the one senator cruz talked about i believe in the context in fairness to senator cruz, in the context of contributions to candidates. The other is the issue of how much candidates should be able to accept as contributions or Party Committees which are comprised of candidates without citizens thinking that they have been bought. And thats been the debate really since certainly watergate where you had Million Dollar if you have full disclosure the citizens can make that decision. Look, my candidate took half a Million Dollars from x, y, z, and i dont like that. They can. That is where we were in the early 1970s when there were Million Dollar contributions to the nixon reelection campaign. The reaction was something is being sold or something is being bought for a Million Dollars. The Supreme Court in buckley said, it is not irrational, it is common sense that people will believe that huge contributions are intended to buy access, influence, results and that people who take them are in some way being bought. So thats why the court in buckley said, it makes perfectly good sense to limit the size of contributions to candidates and Party Committees because of the perception, danger and perception that there is a transaction. So if you have an unlimited contribution that is fully disclosed, you still have the Million Dollars coming in. The question i think will be for the Justice Stevens question s. What about people who dont have a Million Dollars . They dont get to buy any access or influence . But thats been the justification for the contribution limits. The debate has been what size should they be . The assumption has been that those contributions will be disclosed and as far as we know they are all fully disclosed, but that the independent expenditures that the Court Allowed in the buckley decision, which the court said were not going to be corrupting because they would be totally, wholly, completely independent of candidates would also be fully disclosed. We have ended up in a way the worst of both worlds there which is contrary to what the court has said, they are not fully disclosed as we discussed or need not be, there is an option there. Secondly, they are not wholly, totally, and completely independent of candidates, either. The courts assumption they cant be corrupting because candidate and parties will have nothing to do with them. But the reality is we have seen is that many of these super p. A. C. S created are created by former employees of candidates relatives of candidates, they are in many ways tied to the candidates, candidates have appeared at events for these, thanked donors for giving to them. They are not totally wholly independent as the court expected. So its not in that sense they are not fulfilling the role the court thought they would. We have used the word this is the subject that hasnt come up today. We have used the word perception a number ome