Political scientist: One of the most interesting dilemmas

Political scientist: One of the most interesting dilemmas in contemporary democratic politics concerns the regulation of political campaign spending. People certainly should be free, within broad limits, to spend their money as they choose. On the other hand, candidates who can vastly outspend all rivals have an unfair advantage in publicizing their platforms. Democratic governments have a strong obligation to ensure that all voices have an equal chance to be heard, but governments should not subsidize expensive campaigns for each candidate. The resolution of the dilemma, therefore, is clear: _______.

Asked: Which one of the following most logically completes the political scientist’s argument?

To allow people the freedom to spend their money and to restrict political advantage based on excessive spending, there should be a limit on spending allowed.

IMO B

A. only candidates with significant campaign resources should be permitted to run for public office
B. an upper limit on the political campaign spending of each candidate is warranted
C. government subsidization of all political campaigns at a low percentage of their total cost is warranted
D. all wealthy persons should be prohibited from spending their own money on political campaigns
E. each candidate should be allowed to spend as much money on a political campaign as any other candidate chooses to spend[/quote]

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.