Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
interest that might justify contribution limits-the interest in preventing "circumvention of contribution limits designed to combat the corrupting influence of large contributions to candidates." 533 U.S. at 456 n. 18, 121 S.Ct. 2351; see also id. at 456, 121 S.Ct. 2351; [Federal Election Commission v.] Beaumont, 589 U.S. [146] at 155, 128 S.Ct. [2200] at 2207 [156 L.Ed.2d 179 (20083) ("[Rlecent cases have recognized that restricting contributions by various organizations hedges against their use as conduits for 'cireumvention of [valid] contribution limits. " (quoting Colorado Republican II, 533 U.S. at 456 & n. 18, 121 S.Ct. 2851) (second alteration in original)); Cal. Med. Ass'n [v. Federal Election Commission], 458 U.S. [182] at 197-99, 101 S.Ct. 2712 [69 L.Ed.2d 567 (1981)] ; Buckley, 424 U.S. at 35-36, 88, 96 S.Ct. 612.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that congress intended the qta to provide the exclusive means by which adverse claimants could challenge the united states title to real property emphasis added
B. holding that limits on contributions to multicandidate committees are an appropriate means by which congress could seek to protect the integrity of the contribution restrictions upheld by this court in buckley
C. recognizing the right of a former spouse to seek contribution for payment of community debts not allocated by the divorce decree
D. recognizing contribution in the appropriate case
E. recognizing a right to contribution
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.