Final answer:
The relevance of independent expenditures in election versus issue advocacy revolves around regulatory implications and the influence on elections, with election advocacy subject to stricter rules and greater transparency requirements than issue advocacy.
Step-by-step explanation:
The relevance of whether independent expenditures are made for the purpose of election advocacy versus issue advocacy lies in the regulatory differences and the impact on the electoral process. Election advocacy, or expressly advocating the election or defeat of a specific candidate, can be subject to contribution limits and disclosure requirements to prevent potential corruption and to inform voters. In contrast, issue advocacy, which discusses political issues without explicitly supporting or opposing candidates, has fewer restrictions. This distinction was shaped by the Supreme Court's efforts to balance the protection of free speech in political campaigning with the need to prevent undue influence by wealthy individuals on the political process.
Campaigns and interest groups navigate these rules by focusing on attracting support from ideologically aligned voters and by using various methods of fundraising to finance their activities. Independent expenditures by Super PACs and other political organizations can be substantial, especially when financed by wealthy benefactors, underscoring the importance of money in modern campaigns.