Question

Suppose a corporation spent millions of dollars on advertising for a candidate's presidential campaign. The corporation's actions are

a) political speech according to the Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission.
b) most likely illegal since the Court does not believe funding is a form of political speech.
c) protected by the First Amendment as long as the corporation does not spend more than 2 million dollars.
d) in conflict with the Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to ban corporate funding of advertising.

Answer 1

The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission permits corporations to spend unlimited funds on political advertising, as it's considered a form of protected free speech under the First Amendment. The correct answer is option a).

Step-by-step explanation:

A corporation spending millions of dollars on advertising for a candidate's presidential campaign is political speech according to the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The Court's decision in 2010 determined that the government cannot ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections because it violates the First Amendment's free speech clause.

The Citizens United ruling allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections, as long as the spending is independent of the candidates themselves. While this decision has led to a significant increase in election spending, it has also been the subject of controversy and debate regarding the influence of wealth on the political process.