Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): One, plaintiffs claim that the CEP violates the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by invidiously “discriminat[ing]” against minor-party candidates. See J.A. 66 (ComplJ 53). Plaintiffs’ challenge is focused on the CEP’s “qualification criteria,” which are the criteria by which candidates qualify to receive CEP funding, as well as the CEP’s “distribution formulae,” which are the formulae that establish the amount of money that the CEP provides to participating candidates. See id. According to plaintiffs, the CEP’s qualifying criteria and distribution formulae violate the Constitution because they impermissibly burden the “political opportunity” of minor-party candidates. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 95-96, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (<HOLDING>). The District Court granted judgment for 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the cap does not violate equal protection (B) holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection (C) holding that the admission of his juvenile conviction did not violate equal protection (D) holding that a public financing system may violate equal protection if it unfairly or unnecessarily burdens the political opportunity of any party or candidate (E) holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection
Output (English): holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection