regulating contributions to candidates for federal office as never set those limits for state and local officials and this is fitting for any restrictions on the people's right to influence who will govern them should come from those officials closest and most responsive to the people not from unelected bureaucrats no mandate to advance free speech and no expertise in campaign finance not for delhi further to the merits i'd like to say a word about standing the very purpose of this rule is to restrict the right of thousands of financial instance there is no doubt that harm has befall on our candidates and the party itself because of this rule and that is because we can't as the rule was designed to do it has silenced the speech of supporters of the party and therefore has deprived the elimination of a tax deduction for contributors to the nonprofit would be sufficient to give that nonprofit standing because it would be less likely for their supporters to then give money to the nonprofit here we're not even the party and to its candidates and that is more than enough to converse standing in th questions about standing i like to address the merits than twenty first of the statutory argument and as you see argues that exchange acts as a general grant of authority to regulate manipulate practices and to promote free market allows it to create grant of authority thus even want to agencies and may be permissible the court must prove nye's whether congress has decided to grant the authority or grant that particular tool to the agency to carry out  here there is no reason to think that the f c c gave the authority to regulate political or this you see has been given the authority to regulate political speech and that's because such regulations always involve wayne two important interests the need to come back corruption and the need to respect first amendment rights as the supreme court has repeatedly advised legislatures are the experts when it comes just writing this delicate balance between those two interests yes you see maybe the experts in free markets or in corruption in the markets they have no similar expertise when it comes to that other equally or even more important interest so your argument would also invalidate the investment equally applicable to the question here respect to the authorization that the isn't seen as going to protecting markets from means that it's using to do so so when you look at a case like f d a brainwaves and there's no question that the f d a was promoting public health when it regulate tobacco products and nicotine but congress said that this is such a large and this such an important question of political and economic significance we simply don't think congress handed that over to the f d a to regulate back in one nine hundred thirty eight when it passed at the cia and we think that that reason applies a for sure right here where we what the rules are doing is clearly authorized by the statute in the other case and they're only tailored so as not to infringe the first amendment but none yes but two of the two employee of the constitutional wood ends canon of construction you don't have to actually find there has been a constitutional violation in order to do so and moreover i sense though that he was already said that there's a self evident connection between pay to play and the authority given him stand your ground in a different context in the first intimate contact but how do we that as a baseline for rule making with respect to be disciplined by czars and that's quoting from the from the senate report so if congress thought no no this is this is not a power that we expected the that but moreover i think this is the last instance where we would expect congress to reach out and try to reel back in the f c c for the very reason that when this rule applies to any federal election is almost always going to have in is related and that's the argument that you make and analogizing this case to brown and williamson that that's just not enough and i thought that judge ginsburg point about the reasoning in blount also shows us that yes to relate it to their objective a long dormant power to regulate political speech that is somebody sprung forth more recently and in the interim what we've seen is congress act in multiple times in a campaign finance realm with very specific and very careful attention to first amendment and corruption balancing and let me just ask you on the back on the standing point that you introduced at the outset it's curious that you don't have a member of the new york republican party with an affidavit and so could you just trace for us i think i gather your strongest evidence is called kind you know and even though he's not a member of either of the plaintiff parties he attest that he would have bundled in fund raising for the new york republican party i think he's not able to do that given the rule and therefore that that harms the party because presumably the argument is that his bundling would have reached donors in new york that would have our donors loyal to the new york republican party that would his office in new york or from california or wherever would still be just as beneficial as that of a good native new yorker so i don't know whether the fact that he is a member of new jersey party might as well because we can associate with him and at least in this fundraising capacity because of rule twenty three do you also argue just just to correct me if i'm wrong and are you are here tests in his declaration and he doesn't attest that he's ever done that soliciting of contributions from others for candidates in the past he just says that he would do that when i believe that standing and i think one way to frame the standing argument is to look at what came before in this case the eleventh circuit dismissed one of the parties which is no longer in this case a lot of standing in and asked and said there is no reason not to submit the evidence that the court discussed in that case i think we're going to look at this is asked what is different now then was different then when the eleventh circuit dismissed and standing and i think what you have is you have an expanded affidavit from a party official but what it is lacking is the crux of parties from rule twenty three put another way a member from one of the covered associates can contribute directly to political parties such as the new york g o p without the timeout interfering with that there is no restriction that so the idea receiving less money that the party is receiving less money because of rule twenty three doesn't track with the rules actually does but then well except that they have there is a cost for them if they really want to act as a placement agent it within the next two years that there's a deterrent on them and you don't need to turn in terms of contributions to officials not to the party the real specific who does not include but bundling from party there is a barn battling it i'd like to turn to that because i think what is missing in the affidavit is crucial evidence which is one what is the effect of bundling what how does that actually translate to actually lost dollars and the reason why it's important goes to the tailoring of the rules the bundling prohibition effects placement agents at the time they are in essence soliciting contracts on behalf of investment advisors so it is a narrow window in which the bundling pro prohibition would take effect so to the extent that there is harm from that at the moment based on the evidence that's been provided to this court you know affidavits it's strictly conjecture or speculative there's not even information the affidavits about whether in this election cycle the party obtain less money tha it has in previous election cycles as a result of the rule do we require that level of detail at the threshold in our standing analysis how it is a summary judgment standard your honner and whether it requires that in this particular type of case and i don't know how many cases are exactly like this but it does appear you know it does require a level of specificity sufficient possum judge in my view the evidence being provided here is star general in the large part that tracks the fact that there are no affidavits from actual injure municipal securities dealer so if he's part of the reason why there are no new york placement aiden's as plaintiffs in this case i'm just obviously just inferring and you would be too but if this rule there are some who have been some bad incidents that have partially but overall they serve good in terms of markets and investors so did the commission decided was instead of borrowing place needed to replace them under the guise of pay to play rules that would be adopted by a actually put a certain subset of them out of business yes but the party has a different interest because the party obviously benefits from pay to play the more people have to ante up because they think that's going to be a common sensical but disabling people who are loyal to a party from bundling its behalf would lower the contributions if i can answer why campagna is not the perfect find here and let's just start the fact that he's not actually numbered in your party but let's assume for the moment he was a member of the new york party there's two issues with his affidavit and it's completely goes to what the affidavit doesn't say one is he talks about that he would bundle in the future but he never attest that he actually has past so that's one in two it relates to the link between and this is the crux of the world when between the government entity efficiency that government entity in the member firm and i you call congress affidavit is very very very very very carefully saying that come calling us for has served as a placement agent but they think he does not in any point see if it has served or will serve as a placement agent for new york and that is crucial for this role because the rule as a result of it's tailoring requires a link and the only thing the rules try to stop in terms of pay to play are officials with contracting authority for advisors in new york in particular is it is a unique state in the following way the pension fund in new york state pension fund which is  could give to the governor because the governor is not an official as to the pension fund only the cultural areas and that's not to say the government could exist and the governor could never be an official because new york state exclusion of the pension fund could hire place and agents the party tries to close that gap is by referring to specific support from illinois but you say molinari is also not a covered official i'm saying what i'm saying is he may or may not be it depends on whether in terms of the specific contributor member firm whether that member from is actually providing placement agency services to the government of new york not the pension fund so you've got the government has money from tax receipts from other things in a vague or may not hire investment a to discover if i'm a someone and called god knows situation i want to know who i can bundle for or fundraise or how do i find out what the lines of responsibility do think the logic the rationale and the want does bear on you authority question here as well as of course the constitutionality question and one reason is the statutory authority of the animal g thirty seven which comes from section fifteen b exchange is almost word for word the same as the statutory authority that's underlying the rule here in section fifteen and that's the authority that controls rules that a federal must have for broker dealers the language is very very similar so yes i do think want there is very much on your thorny question obviously the constitutionality questions well it i think it i do think it's important to talk about gradually of sex i think it provides actually a very nice contrast with what happened in this case as i understand it issues argument petitions argues basically the commission has veered far outside of its lane and my response to that is well the commission in terms of starting with will julie thirty seven has been in this lane for over for almost twenty five years  in congress has not acted to remove the commission from its lane despite having multiple opportunities to do certain of the campaign finance laws and securities laws but it actually expanded the lane in don and frank when it not only gave the ls or the more authority over media guises but specifically pointed to pay to play laws and i understand that this is in legislative history and legislative history histories is not the tax i understand that but it is a factor to look at it is important to look at it in that you can contrast with brown and williamson which does also look at sort of the history of the legislative history not just tax but also what happened in the court this supreme court in that decision you specialist fifteen pages talking about a seventy year where we really emphasized how there's a very delicate balance under the federal election campaign act that you know that it seems structurally somewhat at odds with that to say contributions are implicated but what the commission is focused on is halting the pay to play not the contribution firms always have a choice of what they can do you know for a firm that has a hundred percent of its revenue from place me two your time now really has to produce this chilling effect on anyone who is even involved as a broker dealer and then human they may not have a hot lead on getting business with a particular government at that moment but if they want to keep their options open for that's sort of work they can't make those sorts of contributions of they will be frozen out for two years and if you imagine a similar ban applying to a large law firm that would freeze amount from government contracting work for two years that not a single soci is going to be allowed to  process and we have letters from financial services institute that are in the record setting were fifty six that say exactly that there is no way for us to operate while allowing our employees to gauge the political process because we don't know when these are spoke to news are going to always clear which candidates are even going to be covered or not covered there's no list that's published by the f c c or been rather is relatively little guidance even so again it makes sense for these financial nationals to exercise great caution some in terms of tailoring there is some leeway for errors to be excused on a limited basis if somebody does if if someone makes one contribution and they find out