allston may be a case that was not very clear exposition, but that certainly would not distinguish it from other campaign finance precedent. in that respect, i think it is not an out liar in a disreputable cents. but in many other respects, if you look at what the allston court tried to say, the majority of the deeply doubt and analysis of where the constitutional law has rested for many, many, many years. so while austin may have been a somewhat opening presentation and open to criticism, i did not see a departure from precedent. and the notion that somehow we deserved the circumstances with no record before the court to support it and no requirement that the court address it, it nonetheless deserves to be reconsidered. i think it is an unsustainable proposition true for those reasons -- an unsustainable proposition. for those reasons, it will visit and revisit issues of constitutional law, and be a fairly extraordinary step for the court to take, and i think that is generally recognized. >> i just want to ask a practical question. he talked about too fast, too soon for any kind of r