Hi @rbakken, the critic argues that by capping large contributions we will force politicians to spend more time chasing small contributions. This means that one half of the advocate's argument (politicians will have to spend less time chasing contributions overall) is negated by the fact that they will become increasingly reliant on small gifts. We are being asked how the critic attacks the advocate's argument. The critic does not raise the possibility that certain incumbents will be impacted more than others by the cap, so E does not represent how the critic argues against the advocate.
