Final answer:
The most common argument for regulating campaign donations is that unregulated giving allows wealthy people to buy elections, leading to concerns about an oligarchic influence in politics. The rise of super PACs after the Citizens United decision has intensified these concerns, despite various forms of campaign finance reform aiming to limit political donations.
Step-by-step explanation:
The most common argument for regulating campaign donations is C) Unregulated giving allows wealthy people to buy elections. This concern stems from the idea that large, unchecked contributions from wealthy individuals and corporations can disproportionately influence the political process to the detriment of the democratic principle of 'one person, one vote'. The Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission led to the rise of super PACs, enabling corporations and unions to donate unlimited amounts of money. These unlimited donations have led to concerns that such contributions can lead to a type of oligarchy, where the wealthiest have disproportionate political influence. Despite the fact that there are caps on how much individuals can directly donate to candidates, the creation of super PACs and the absence of limits to their funding raise substantial concerns about the integrity of electoral processes.
Unregulated campaign contributions have the potential to undermine the political power of the average citizen, giving rise to claims that the democracy becomes one in name only, as Paul Krugman argued in 2011. Campaign finance reform efforts, such as the Federal Election Campaign Act and the McCain-Feingold Act, have attempted to impose limits on political donations, but loopholes and the evolving legal landscape, including Supreme Court rulings, have complicated these efforts. The dichotomy between protecting free speech and preventing possible corruption or undue influence is at the heart of the debate on campaign finance regulations.