Question

What was the effect of the supreme court ruling moving in citizens united versus federal election commission 

Answer 1

The Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allowed unlimited campaign spending by corporations and unions based on the protection of free speech under the First Amendment. This decision overturned previous restrictions on campaign spending and resulted in a significant increase in election spending.

Step-by-step explanation:

The Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission had the effect of allowing unlimited campaign spending by corporations and unions. The Court determined that campaign expenditures are a form of speech protected by the First Amendment, and therefore the restrictions imposed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) violated the corporations' right to free expression. This decision overturned previous restrictions on campaign spending and led to a significant increase in election spending.

Answer 2

The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission had a significant effect on campaign finance in the United States. The ruling, which was handed down in 2010, removed limits on independent expenditures by corporations, labor unions, and other groups in political campaigns. This effectively allowed these entities to spend unlimited amounts of money on political ads and other forms of advocacy, as long as they did not coordinate with candidates or political parties.

The ruling has been controversial and has had a significant impact on political campaigns, particularly at the national level. Critics argue that it has led to an influx of money into politics, giving wealthy donors and corporations an outsized influence on the political process. They argue that this undermines the principle of "one person, one vote," and that it allows special interests to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.

Proponents of the ruling argue that it is protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, and that it levels the playing field by allowing more groups to participate in the political process. They also point out that individuals still have limits on how much they can donate directly to candidates or political parties, and that the ruling has led to a more robust and diverse political conversation.