Political advocate: Campaigns for elective office should be subsidized with public funds. One reason is that this would allow politicians to devote less time to fund-raising, thus giving campaigning incumbents more time to serve the public. A second reason is that such subsidies would make it possible to set caps on individual campaign contributions, thereby reducing the likelihood that elected officials will be working for the benefit not of the public but of individual large contributors. Critic: This argument is problematic: the more the caps constrain contributions, the more time candidates have to spend finding more small contributors. The critic objects that the advocate's argument is flawed because ['one of the projected results cited in support of the proposal made is entailed by the other and ttherefore does not constitute independent support of the proposal', 'of the two projected results cited in support of the proposal made, one works against the other', 'any resourceful large contributor can circumvent caps on individual contributions by sending in smaller amounts under various names', 'it overlooks the possibility that large contributors will stop contributing if they cannot contribute at will']