Answer:
i think the 1950's
i dont know sorry if im wrong
Explanation:
Answer: (B)
The court ruled that political action committees (PACs) could accept unlimited contributions for making "Independent Expenditures"
Explanation:
Political Action Committees (PACs) are independent groups created to raise money in support of a particular candidate.
Prior to the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the amount of money that could be contributed to PACs was limited.
In 2010, the supreme court ruled in favor of Citizens United, in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case.
The ruling was that corporations and unions were allowed to spend as much as they wanted to, in support of their chosen candidates as long as the corporations were independent of the campaigns. Therefore PACs could receive unlimited contributions.
According to the Supreme court, political spending is protected under the 1st amendment, as it is a form of free speech.
This was an important case as it helped ease the restrictions on political spending.
The type of audience that is being described in the
situation above is the dominant or preferred audience. This is a type of
audience that decodes the message that is being said to them by the speaker by
which they wanted what the information that is being laid out and agrees to it.
<span />
Answer:
#STOPBEINGCHEAPWITHPOINTS
the answer is We're politically and economically stable
For over a century Australia has built public and private institutions that Australians can have confidence in. That may feel like it's changing, but compared with many other countries we are a beacon of stability – and that makes it a safe place to do business.
Explanation:
