 In other words, the key distinction is whether you agreed to be influenced or not. Right. If you did, and then you had a deal, and then you went and voted that way or whatever, and then you got the money later, that's not a defense under this statute because the crime is the agreement. The crime is not the later payoff. So it's not the timing of the payment so much. The distinction is can the government prove there was a deal just to influence