 influenced or rewarded, you know, is kind of internally inconsistent because typically gratuities, gifts don't require that kind of corrupt intent. So is this really a bribery statute or does it cover both? And I'm not disagreeing that it's confusing or ambiguous. I'm not saying the dissent's position is crazy. I'm just saying I think the majority probably has the better of the argument when you consider all of the factors they listed to explain why they thought this couldn't cover gratuities, which includes, among other things,