government just gave us all this stolen information and told the voters that, that would be one thing. i still think it would be a crime, but at least they're being transparent. when they are concealing the source of that, that is exactly what our open society is meant to prevent. we want people to evaluate information in context. and just to bring this back to the framers of the constitution, they were worried about two things, chris. they were worried about foreign influence and self-dealing. this is why we have a natural born citizen requirement. we want, you know, loyalty. we don't want influence from outside. this is the federalist papers 68 where hamilton warns of foreign governments trying to infiltrate our elections. so i completely disagree that this is permissible as some kind of first amendment right. >> professor. >> the statute itself clearly is intended to cover financial contributions. it's always been applied that way. it has never been construed or interpreted -- >> then why didn't they say that? >> why didn't they say what? >> money.