the state of illinois passed a statute that restricts hostile takeovers of corporations headquartered or incorporated in illinois. It specifically states that if the company attempting th takeover was a non-illinois company, then an illinois commision created by the statute had the authority to review the takeover plan and could refuse to allow the takeover "to protect illinois corporations and their stockholders from fraud and abuse by out-of-state businesses" and in any case had the authority to hold the plan up for an indefinite period of time. Most hostile takeover attempts by non-state companies have been defeated by such holdups without and findings of fraud. When cleveland productions attempted to takeover the chicago ironworks company. The commission intervened and put the matter on ice. As the commissioner commented holding up the takeover process. In researching the law, Clevelands attorney found a federal law governing takeovers but the federal law merely provided that certain information be provided to stockholders of takeover targets. Cleveland sues the state in federal court challenging the statutes constitutionality.

Based on the information in the scenario, what is clevelands best basis to argue that the statute is unconstitutional?

a. Undue burden and discrimination against interstate commerce

b. Equal protection

c. Preemption by federal law

d. Contact Clause