Final answer:
Super PACs allow unlimited donations from wealthy individuals and corporations to influence elections, operating under the principle that such spending is protected free speech; they arose from the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that best describes super PACs is D. They allow America's very wealthy to donate unlimited funds to influence elections and spend money on advertising and other political activities. Super PACs, or Independent Expenditure-Only Committees, emerged following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision in 2010. They can raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, and individuals to campaign for or against political candidates or ballot initiatives, provided they do not coordinate directly with a candidate’s campaign. This has sparked concerns over the influence of money on democracy, as the wealthiest donors can potentially sway election outcomes and policy decisions without transparency or spending limits.
Unlike traditional PACs, which are highly regulated and have strict contribution limits, super PACs operate with the understanding that spending money on political advocacy is a form of protected free speech. The prevalence of super PACs has raised questions about the potential for oligarchy, where the ultra-wealthy exert disproportionate influence over political processes. The substantial amounts spent by super PACs on political campaigning are reflective of their burgeoning role in shaping electoral politics in the U.S. For instance, in the 2020 election cycle, super PAC spending exceeded $2 billion.