don't say that when you you say you say you say in order to decide this case we don't need to say that and we can interpret and crew  what would we do well i haven't asked us to invoke sr i think that what we've asked the court to do is to review the statement about it but controlling commissioners for a long while but we due process and notice problems here and you respond to that by saying what we did the statutes told clear right it prohibits straw contributions and it defines persons as corporations what's what's not clear here right that your commission responded by saying well we have a whole whole series of decisions in other contexts where we treat corporate contributions as corporate money even though say well if when actually it looks at the guidance none of it involved either two thousand one hundred and twenty two nor did it involve fact patterns like blatant violation alleged here loaned money to a candidate or the owner had violated a corporate contribution bam however in almost all those cases the money was business revenue derived from the corporation so there was some question about whether it was the owners money or the corporation here we have a completely different back pattern where there is really no dispute that all the money flowing through these relatives and corporations came from the outside came from an outside donor so even if you were to read these misguided to somehow a fact seen through ginsburg's case including lawsky including common cause all of which say together that in this kind of a circumstance the agency much issue reasons for the disposition and those reasons are subject to review there's no presumption of non review ability in fact one of the cases as we start with the assumption that discretion d c c c did not go as far as to say that if that actual merits of the decision was for the court which as you know they  want to proceed invoke the words exercise a process to a real discretion that's the end of it and the court is not in play that's absurd the nothing that is nothing in the case will support that except maybe commission to set for it an explanation of what the p c s are or why they are exercising prosecutorial discretion is not the commission's position that you just say th that in the wake of citizens united where corporate entities for the st time ever committed any contribution that for the st time ever there were super pacs where there were unlimited contributions  to the corporation versus the single member kelsie or closely held corporation if you are looking to that in commission regulations for guidance it was not it was not so clear i mean come on we're we're friends either or it was saying when you haven't reviewable decision here is how we're going to conduct our review of that decision but it didn't purport to say one way or another that in cases where the commission has express country what do you think that sentence means that the court was drawing a distinction between the circumstances that were as an example that what the where the circumstances and before the supreme court there were two claims at issue in the underlying ministry of matter that ended up coming before the court the st was that there was a corporate contribution ban violation n affirmative no reason to believe so they've affirmatively found that nobody believed him occurred and that is the line that the crew here says referring to because when you don't have a violation or when the commission believes that there is no violation then you squarely can apply piqua because there are none of the discretionary consideration that you have when you're exercising credential review that are particularly exercised its discretion not to prosecute because constitutional concerns notice due process those are classically reviewable decisions there was no determination here that there was no reason to believe in fact the controlling group recognized that there were circumstances that made fun of themselves to pursuing a str on determination by the three that there's no reason to believe that a violation of her right no absolutely not no there are several instances where there are several things that can happen after a ministry of complaint is filed primary three are you trying to reason to believe you find no reason to believe or you just missed an exercise a prosecutor or discretion those are the three ways that primarily the commission will go numbers but if i may try person and you responded essentially has the opportunity to demonstrate that no action should be taken against the person so he got it express the recognizing the commission's ability to dismiss matter without making st making terminations on whether or not there is or if not reason to believe the women on this is already is if they are going requirements there's not there's nothing in here that any way that expressly limits their authority to determine to know two things one does seem to be some confusion as to what the vote in this case was the commissioners here did not vote directly on whether to dismiss this matter of prosecutorial discretion they could do so if they had for record material that is what they decided here they did not attempt to find no reason to believe that they did not attempt to to simply make no determination sceptic on that reason to believe i want to also address