the court rejected that because of what you started with. you said that political speech is a paramount first amendment value. that's no doubt the case, and the court applied a compelling interest standard and the court rejected the position, but the position that we took was to defend the statute which applied broadly. >> i have no problem with that because that was your job, but i'm getting into some of the comments by some of our colleagues, the president and others about how wrong this case was. when i don't think it was wrong at all. you're 1996 law review article about private speech and public purpose emphasized the need to examine the motive behind speech restrikdss. since you have already written about this, i would like to know whether you personally agree with the supreme court and citizens united decision that quote speech restrictions -- >> you are listening to orrin