Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to have been concerned that since Nix had “never before held office” and at the time of the complaint had taken few steps to establish his candidacy, LaRoque, 755 F.Supp.2d at 175, the risk he would change his mind was unacceptably high, thus raising the possibility that the court would end up “render[ing] an advisory opinion in ‘a case in which no injury would have occurred at all,’ ” Animal Legal Def. Fund, Inc. v. Espy, 23 F.3d 496, 500 (D.C.Cir.1994) (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 564 n. 2, 112 S.Ct. 2130). But when plaintiffs filed their complaint, the election in which Nix planned to run was only nineteen months away, a far cry from the more than four-year gap that sank Senator Mitch McConnell’s standing in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 225-26,124 S.Ct. 619,157 L.Ed.2d 491 (2003) , overruled on other grounds by Citizens United
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that senator mcconnell lacked standing to challenge a provision of the bipartisan campaign reform act of 2002 bcra that at earliest would have affected him in his 2008 reelection campaign
B. holding citizens lacked standing to challenge statute when all citizens affected in the same way
C. holding that incumbent congressmen subject to twoyear election cycles had standing to challenge the fecs implementation of certain provisions of bcra
D. holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue
E. holding that letters from the union during an election campaign containing arguably misleading statements did not affect the employees right to a free and fair choice
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.