my proposed amendment because i think the actual limits that were imposed at the time of the buckley decisionhmay well have been designed to protect incumbents and i don't think justice whiteha discussed that possibility in his dissent but i think if the limits are placedil too low itit could be a valid argument that they are favoring incumbents. that's why i said that they should be, they should be reasonableness requirement. and, which i think would solve the problem because i, i do think that if congress focused on reasonable limits and i don't think there is any danger that my c former colleagues would actually conclude that any limin whatsoever is unreasonable after the amendment was adopted to correct the heart of the problem. >> host: now the objection of course is that reasonableness is not self-defining and judges would have to decide what was reasonable. adam liptak from "the new york times" asked you a good question. would reasonable requirement allow restrictions on "new york times" ability to write editorial on behalf of any candidate.it what was your response? >> guest: my respon