Absolutely a typo--since the correct, but now discredited number, appears in
the Brennan Center release I cited.

My reply to Rick's: I accept that my party committee representations will
lead some readers to conclude that I am simply objecting to a state of
affairs with the narrow interests of clients in mind. I speaking in fact
only for myself and my views reflect concern about the process we are
adopting in this country for writing the rules of political activity and
competition. But in any event, my position is no more political in character
than the position of the Brennan Center; and if there is "bias" to be
alleged, it is surely found on both sides of the debate. I simply cannot
agree that bias can be ignored or discounted in the name of "social
science".

Last--truly--point: I have no way of judging whether the study is good or
bad social science. Perhaps it is useful for some purposes. And perhaps, as
some have argued, it is useful because there are no other studies of this
kind. Surely I am not alone, however, in questioning whether this
study--whatever its other merits--should assume, in the Brennan Center's
words, a "prominent" role in determining whether an organization in the
United States can run a  political ad within a specified time period before
an election. This seems like an awful lot of weight to assign to what
Kollar-Kotelly correctly refers to as the "subjective nature of the effort
of trying to capture mental impressions of viewers"--and a demographically
limited circle of viewers at that. 

I simply believe that the exercise of political rights, while not
unqualified, should be not be restricted on the basis of this type
of--Kollar-Kotelly's words--"academic exercise". The attempt to use it to
this effect is troubling, and it follows from the marriage being forced
between academics and politics.