This is anti-supported. The political scientist says that the government should allow all voices an equal chance, and banning candidates who don’t have lots of money would do the opposite.

This is strongly supported by the stimulus. The political scientist tells us that campaign finance discrepancies are unfair, and the government should ensure more equality. However, we shouldn’t subsidize campaigns, so the remaining option is spending limits.

This is not supported by the stimulus. The political scientist thinks that we should reduce the unfair spending advantage of some candidates over others, and paying for an equal portion of all campaigns would leave everyone just as unequal as ever.

This is anti-supported. The political scientist claims that in general, people should be allowed to spend their money freely, with only certain “broad” limits. An extreme limitation like this would be totally at odds with that principle.

This claim is anti-supported. The political scientist’s point is that allowing total freedom in campaign spending results in an unfair advantage for some candidates, which we should be trying to fix, not allowing to go ahead.