Political advocate: Campaigns for elective office should be subsidized

Competition Mode Question

Political advocate: Campaigns for elective office should be subsidized with public funds. One reason is that this would allow politicians to devote less time to fund-raising, thus giving campaigning incumbents more time to serve the public. A second reason is that such subsidies would make it possible to set caps on individual campaign contributions, thereby reducing the likelihood that elected officials will be working for the benefit not of the public but of individual large contributors.

Critic: This argument is problematic: the more the caps constrain contributions, the more time candidates have to spend finding more small contributors.

Which one of the following principle, if established, provides a basis for the advocate’s argument?


(A) If complete reliance on private funding of some activity keeps the public from enjoying a benefit that could be provided if public funds were used, such public funds should be provided.

(B) If election campaigns are to be fended from public funds, terms of office for elected officials should be lengthened.

(C) If in an election campaign large contributions flow primarily to one candidate, public funds should be used to support the campaigns of that candidate’s rivals.

(D) If public funding of some activity produces a benefit to the public but also inevitably a special benefit for specific individuals, the activity should not be fully funded publicly but in part by the individuals deriving the special benefit.

(E) If a person would not have run for office in the absence of public campaign subsidies, this person should not be eligible for any such subsidies.