as trevor potter said, just simply to pick candidates and price spiders. what's your take on this was the way you framed it. is interesting because i think that the notion that the parties are in charge of who runs and wins elections and then what happens once they get his office is be challenged in and of itself. that i think that the big money is talking louder than the parties in many important respects. it's come back to another one of your premises from earlier. i think the basic point to make is the individual's a putting in this vast amount of money into the political system. they expect something for their money and what they get to their money is not only the candidates that choice prevailing in primaries having huge financial advantages going into the general election if that's the case. because as you point out, that is fundraising on both sides. but it's also about determining the policy agenda and that happens outside of the context of elections as well as within the context of elections. so just give one very brief example of what i need, you