mr. werthheimer? >> no. and nor do i think the solution is to remove the contribution limb pits the studies have shown almost all of ut super pac ads are negative attack ads. but we believe that one of of the steps that should be taken and can be taken is to end the candidate-specific super pacs of the type we have seen in the presidential election. those super pacs can be eliminated. when the supreme court ruled in citizens united that that corporate independent expenditures took place they also said they had to be independent of the candidate and they left to congress to define what's independent, what's coordination. once again we have very weak and problematic coordination rules. even under those rules we believe a number of the candidate-specific super pacs are operating illegally but we clearly feel that you could define super pacs in a way that they're not going to be run by close associates of the candidate and they're not going to be having their money raised by the candidates. these super pacs are

mr. werthheimer. removing limits from contributions -- your proposal would be that everything would be disclosed, senator alexander. if someone wanted to get to an independent expenditure, there would be -- there would be disclosure of that. >> i am assuming that if the limits were elected, people would get to the campaigns and the campaigns and candidates would be disclosed. >> unless you did not want to disclose. >> that would take us back to a system of legalized bribery. that me give a few comments from people other than me about this. the supreme court said contributions were necessary to deal with the reality or appearance of corruption inherent in a system permiting unlimited financial contributions. and in hand the corrupt system is what the supreme court called it -- an inherently corrupt system is what the supreme court called a system without disclosure of contributions. the system of unlimited contributions to national parties prostitutes ideals and the means democracy and -- demeans democ