Question

Supporters and opponents of the Citizens United v. Federal Election

Commission ruling would most disagree about the answer to which
question?
A. Was the Citizens United organization biased in favor of one
candidate?
B. Should corporations be able to spend as much money as they
wish to influence elections?
C. Should citizens have the right to express their political opinions by
donating to candidates?
D. Are corporate contributions effective at influencing the outcomes
of national elections?

Answer 1

Supporters and opponents of the Citizens United ruling most disagree about whether corporations should be able to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

Step-by-step explanation:

Supporters and opponents of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling would most disagree about the answer to the question of whether corporations should be able to spend as much money as they wish to influence elections.

The Citizens United ruling in 2010 stated that limits on corporate and union political expenditures during election cycles violate the First Amendment, allowing unlimited spending as long as it is independent of the candidates. Opponents argue that this decision allows the ultra-wealthy and large corporations to have an undue influence on elections and policy decisions, while supporters believe it is a form of free speech and allows more diverse voices to be heard in the political process.