With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". FECA limited contributions to $1000 per federal candidate, the Court only considered contributions larger than that amount in evaluating the validity of the government’s interest. See 424 U.S. at 28, 96 S.Ct. at 639 (noting that $1000 cap focused upon “the narrow aspect” of contribution activity linked with actual or potential corruption). Here, the defendants argue that the old contribution limits were not adequate to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. However, the old limits ranged from $200 to $2000, depending upon the race. D.C.Code § 1-1441 (1981). The defendants did not present convincing evidence that contributions under the old caps were large enough to raise a concern about corruption or the appearance of corruption. See also Carver v. Nixon, 72 F.3d at 643 (<HOLDING>). The defendants did present some general

A: holding that contingency fee contract did not cap award of attorneys fees where johnson had so held
B: holding that previous contribution cap levels did not suggest possibility of corruption
C: holding that the termination of the fee cap did not affect litigation in progress when the fee cap was in effect
D: holding that the combination of the statutory cap and a high threshold for culpability for punitive damages in a title vii case confined a punitive damages award within the cap to a level tolerated by due process
B.