Final answer:
The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case permitted corporations and unions to contribute unlimited funds to Political Action Committees (PACs), considering such contributions a form of free speech and leading to the rise of super PACs. This decision uplifted restrictions on campaign finance and contributed to a significant increase in election spending, with implications for increased influence of wealthy individuals and corporations in politics.
Step-by-step explanation:
Impact of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission on Campaign Finance
The landmark Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission dramatically altered the landscape of campaign finance in the United States. Prior to this decision, political campaign contributions were regulated and limited to certain amounts, underscoring efforts to maintain transparency and prevent undue influence in elections. However, the Citizens United ruling in 2010 changed this by determining that the spending limits imposed on corporations and unions were unconstitutional based on First Amendment grounds. The Court held that these entities’ contributions to Political Action Committees (PACs) are a form of free speech and thereby cannot be arbitrarily limited or mandated to be disclosed.
This decision led to the creation of super PACs, powerful political tools that can raise unlimited funds. As a result, there has been a substantial increase in the flow of money into elections, with critics arguing that it enhances the political power of the ultra-wealthy and large organizations. Advocates for the decision claim it protects the right to free speech for all entities, while opponents raise concerns about potential steps toward an oligarchic society where the rich have more influence in electing candidates and shaping policy.