would the statute, then, have substantial overbreadth? >> well, i would urge you not to do that in that kind of sweeping way because the reason for the nonprofit corporations being covered is to make sure that the nonprofit corporations don't function as conduits for the for-profit corporations. >> suppose we were to say that. would the statute then not be substantially overbroad? >> well, i don't think that the statute is substantially overbroad right now. so if you took out certain applications, i can't -- >> i'm asking you to assume that we drove a nonprofit profit distinction. then the statute, it seems to me, clearly has to follow. because number one, we couldn't sever it based on the language. >> i see what you're saying. well, you could do a couple things. you could do what justice stevens suggested. so justice stevens suggested -- i suggested to chief justice roberts -- >> i don't think you really caught what i suggested because you treated it as an enlargement of the mcfl. >> i was going to go back. >> that is not what the nation

would the statute, then, have substantial overbreadth?ge you not to do that in that kind of sweeping way because the reason for the nonprofit corporations being covered is to make sure that the nonprofit corporations don't function as conduits for the for-profit corporations. >> suppose we were to say that. would the statute then not be substantially overbroad? >> well, i don't think that the statute is substantially overbroad right now. so if you took out certain applications, i can't -- >> i'm asking you to assume that we drove a nonprofit profit distinction. then the statute, it seems to me, clearly has to follow. because number one, we couldn't sever it based on the language. >> i see what you're saying. well, you could do a couple things. you could do what justice stevens suggested. so justice stevens suggested -- i suggested to chief justice roberts -- >> i don't think you really caught what i suggested because you treated it as an enlargement of the mcfl. >> i was going to go back. >> that is not what the national rifle association

that is vast over brett -- over bret -- overbreadth. i am not talking about the corruption. you have had your quid pro quo argument. we will get to that when we get there. but as far as the interest you are now addressing, though shareholders that do not agree with this political position of being somehow cheated. it does not apply, probably, to the vast majority of corporations in this country. >> you are right. when it comes to single shareholders, the protection interests do not apply. >> that cannot be the justification, because if it were, the statute would be vastly overdone -- >> the fastest is the anti- corruption. >> what is your reaction to the argument that

. >> what happened to the overbreadth doctrine? i thought our doctrine in the first amendment is if you write it too broadly we're not going to pair it back to the point where it's constitutional if it's overbroad it's invalid. what happened to that? >> i don't think it would be substantially overbroad. if i tell you the fcc has never applied this statute to a book to say it doesn't apply to books is to take off, essentially, nothing from the -- >> we don't put our first amendment rights in the hand of ffc bureaucrats and if you say you're not going to apply it to a book, what about a pamphlet? >> i think a pamphlet would be different. a pamphlet is pretty classic election. this is no attempt to say the 441 b only applies to video and not to print. >> what is the particular -- what if the particular movie involved here had not been distributed by the video on demand? suppose that -- people could view it for free on netflix over the internet? so that free dvds were passed out. suppose people could attend the movie for free in a movi