Definition: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Input: 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
Holding statements: (A) holding that contingency fee contract did not cap award of attorneys fees where johnson had so held (B) holding that the termination of the fee cap did not affect litigation in progress when the fee cap was in effect (C) 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 (D) holding down the locking cap (E) holding that previous contribution cap levels did not suggest possibility of corruption
Output:
holding that contingency fee contract did not cap award of attorneys fees where johnson had so held