dollars to a candidate in a primary election and that if that candidate survives to the general election that that individual may contribute a total of fifty four hundred dollars are his simply asks how it can be more corrupting to give that same fifty four f about to hit send when your owner's order came through ok it was a moment of some celebration in the office the two to clarify those two points first following up on bread packing town the shapiro the mandatory shall normally creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion such as the case here second the court explicitly addressed the aipcs claim in this case that special review provisions need not be provided if court was not in fact necessary no similar exceptions present here  in essence the issue is simply that shapiro is black letter law shapiro if anything the term is that several of the authorities relied on by the f c c are no longer good law and since there's no question that the courts do have jurisdiction over here in this one the district court i think can be trusted to realize when she when she last restriction over the matter in general and second she had in fact certified it previously and finally i think it's important to note that we're here on a gran it's only applies to an individual who is not given in a primary but wishes to give the general election i think there is some confusion in the record on this if we were to prevail the remedy would not be that there's a change in the contribution limit or the primary election standard or any other stage related what would happen is that during the primary election the contribution limit would remain twenty seven hundred dollars and once one knew who had advanced to the general election the contribution limit would be the aggregate amount that congress had approved between that individual and that can there's been discussions of other special situations such as the way louisiana picks is congressman where you will have a single election if someone gets a majority that person is seated we're not suggesting the contribution limit in that single election is fifty four hundred dollars or defines election very broadly to include primaries to clue generals to include runoffs and various other sorts of ways of picking campuses and since we're not asking this court to draw a line from the word election in the contribution limit we're merely asking for part really in these particular circumstances a contributor who has not given in the primary and wishes to given the trouble and finally there's there's also been the suggestion that in fact the aipcs regulation which permits the taking of unspent primary funds in there spending the general election is the real center of this case we disagree on two points one we take the p c at his word that it's regulation is in fact a fair representation of the statute and to  i would direct your honour's to fifty two u s c three zero one one for which governs when monies that are not good that are given can in fact be spent and so parts one is who are otherwise authorized expenditures in connection with the campaign for federal office of the candidate or individual that language he suggests one because not limited by election as contribution limits are that in fact money can be used in the context of the same campaign so i think that argument is a little bit of a red herring symmetry that you point out stems from the regulations not this issue and you argue it that way pages thirty two thirty three of your break so the question i guess i have is w when when we have cases that challenge only commission regulations they are treated not in the way that the designated go to the in bank were treated as a regular case the history or the size of it comes up  that it's it's not really the regulation that's harming us because the regulation is in fact can grew into with congressional intent for the reason than for the the structure that i just i just read out and finally i did there find and certify the constitutional questions to to the extent and again we disagree with the merits claim that the regulation is the cause of our injury if that were the view on the fifth amendment claim  that might affect the outcome of this appeal but it would not touch the the first time a claim it's not a c if i understand on the fifth amendment your argument is that the statute is what causes your problem and it's unconstitutional  the regulatory question and you would have to go back and file the district court if you wanted to still challenge a regulation that right yes if we want to i think that is correct and even we're all sort of dealing with a new law here but yes i think it's correct extent the regulation is the issue that is an issue again the only question for us is is it frivolous as a shorthand for all the other words and shapiro for you to argue that it is the statute rather than the regulation that is causing the problem right that's the issue before us on this fourth amendment issues and frivolous to argue that is the statute rather than the regulation i think that's correct and again in the sense that the statute says monies that are given may be spent throughout the campaign   you know i think number of cases before shapiro use different articulations of what the standard is but one consistent theme in all of those cases even when they talk about these six or sometimes talk about summary judgment but there is agreement that  case whatever the standard may be a case that is settled by the supreme court where legal issue is settled by the supreme court that those cases are insubstantial and shapiro confirms that that standard remains the standard remains the standard and of which confirmed that a legal issue that is settled by the supreme court is indeed really insubstantial in just a few of those cases or so but it depends on what we mean by the words holy subtle by the supreme court that is if the supreme court ha statute or supreme court decisions which is the only thing that hollins in this case have as a basis for distinguishing their claims from the issues resolved in buckley so does the district court properly applied to regardless of whether it this question before us now was never addressed not was one hundred twenty two pages pretty thorough brief and then i'll see it being addressed the only thing that was being interesting but we was the running for election and there there could have been an opponent who because of some scandals suddenly falls out of the raise and ultimately candidates unopposed but wasn't necessarily a unopposed throughout the entire can is the even if a candidate is running reasons why a candidate may want to gain support in a primary regardless of the extent of opposition and certainly even in circumstances where candidates have been opponents you still may have wide disparities in the level of support between those two candidates and i don't think anybody would suggest that in such circumstances the candidate who is has a stronger basis of support should have a lower contribution limit i think the supreme court's precedents made quite clear that we don't and that it's not constitutional to establish them and like that but i think another important counties primary elections the civically because they recognize a distinction between primary and general elections and they made the choice they did not want to associate with their support those candidates in their primary elections but they didn't want to do so in the general that makes clear that new novel claim and not something for close by buckley is a characterization that if you merely look at the statute how it's actually written on it completely undermines their characterization is not an accurate dollars per election not an election cycle limit and the court pointed out that it had already not held those limits of being constitutionally permissible in combating the government's  interest in in preventing corruption in its appearance there is just no basis for distinguishing the circumstances in this case from buckley and i think if you look at the cases that have been shapiro the this case is actually a stronger case for a finding insurance and the court referred to holdings regarding other states insurance carrier requirements and demonstrating that the requirement the constitutionality of that requirement had already been held it was a  factually erroneous characterizations of this out you in being artificially bifurcated which it clearly is not there is nothing left except a challenge to the statute that the supreme court in buckley has already upheld i would like to take a moment to address the question that the court raised about the regulation which the appellant's clearly are challenging a regulation the entire basis of their argument that there are equal protection argument that some that contribut appellant's are challenging the regulation or regulation that governs how a whole candidates spend their money does not cannot possibly cause injury to the candidates themselves and so it's even as plain as hollandsworth challenging the regulation which they claim they are not if there are no further questions i'll just reiterate that the federal election campaign act judicial review provision does not grant plaintiffs a statutory right to have the on by a court of appeals revisit questions that have already clearly been settled by the supreme court the district court in this case correctly recognize that the pounds are simply asserting a constitutional right to make double the limit contributions to certain candidates trying to election campaigns and the supreme court has already made clear that there is no such right the decision  in this case demonstrate it is not always the case that a contributor who supports a candidate to win one contest would necessarily support the candidate to win a second time to a it may be the case that the candidate himself chooses to carry that money over about where you you can have situations like this very case that we have before the court here where the island where contributor made a conscious choice not to is the party candidate in connection with one election but then to support a candidate with another contributions my money that individual gives to other individual individuals who happen to be candidates to support them in the abstract it is to support them when a particular election contest that is how congress didn't design in the law and that is how it is written and so the start of the phrase clearly established i think it's important to note that the only authority the f c c has for claiming that this case is so a salish such an established question of law that would bring a frivolous question over which the federal courts have the only way in which the legal argument can be frivolous i think that's correct greg gets home so that you raise a crazy i'm not saying did you raise a crazy argument that has never been decided because no one was crazy enough regional election open primary in california ga so that was really not like what you're talking about here right that's there wasn't there was opposition in that one that wasn't all that all parties have opposition will desperately wants this case to be about the primary election and it isn't about the primary election it's about the general election and this is what i argue my client didn't want to make sure that the republican nominee in the general election was seated but because there were these whether the democrat or republican is likely to make it out of the primary but that's my point that's my point your honor is that because my client didn't want to give anything in the primary it doesn't matter what's going on in the program but your i thought your argument at least her fifth men are to minister not fair to have  the person who runs on opposed to essentially be able to get twice the amount as the person who runs a post in iraq but there's no metaphysical uncertainty there because by the time the general election comes along you know four hundred dollars in the primary based on some probabilistic understanding of who's going to advance the general election they would have some merit there but they don't because we're saying by the time the general election comes along you know precisely how material that writing candidate was and usually the answers can be not at all one of the special proceed interest on a ship like under shapiro with of course it is because we didn't have any briefing on this question because we never would have been at an actual full opportunity considerate it's new and that i think has to be the standard here as well there are questions