How did the decision in Citizens United v. FEC change campaign finance law?
A.
It finally put clear and enforceable limits on soft money.
B.
It removed any dollar restrictions on independent expenditures.***?
C.
It forced candidates for federal office to personally solicit donations.
D.
It allowed political action groups to keep their donations secret.
Yes.
Thank you for your help :)
You are very welcome.
The correct answer is B. The decision in Citizens United v. FEC changed campaign finance law by removing any dollar restrictions on independent expenditures.
To understand how this decision changed campaign finance law, we need to look at the background of the case. Citizens United v. FEC refers to a Supreme Court case decided in 2010. The case involved a nonprofit organization called Citizens United, which sought to promote and distribute a documentary film critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential election.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC), the regulatory agency responsible for enforcing campaign finance laws, determined that the film was an advertisement subject to the restrictions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act. The BCRA prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to fund "electioneering communications" within a certain time frame before an election.
Citizens United challenged the application of BCRA, arguing that it violated their First Amendment free speech rights. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled in favor of Citizens United, thus changing campaign finance law.
The decision in Citizens United v. FEC held that the government cannot restrict independent expenditures made by corporations, unions, and other associations. This means that these entities can spend unlimited amounts of money on political activities, as long as they are not directly coordinated with a candidate or a candidate's campaign.
In essence, the decision removed any dollar restrictions on independent expenditures, allowing corporations, unions, and other associations to play a more significant role in financing political campaigns. It opened the door for the creation of Super PACs (political action committees) and increased the influence of money in politics.
It is important to note that Citizens United did not change the regulations and restrictions on "hard money," which refers to direct contributions to candidates or parties, which are still subject to contribution limits and disclosure requirements.
Therefore, the correct answer is B. Citizens United v. FEC changed campaign finance law by removing any dollar restrictions on independent expenditures.