1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Ira Lisetskai [31]
3 years ago
14

There is now no restriction on the amount of money that organizations or individuals can give to candidates in national election

s due to a ruling by _____.
A. the U.S. Senate
B. the Supreme Court
C. a majority of states
D. the Republican Party
History
2 answers:
Semmy [17]3 years ago
6 0
There is now no restriction on the amount of money that organizations or individuals can give to candidates in national elections due to a ruling by "the Supreme Court", although this ruling was highly controversial. 
Damm [24]3 years ago
3 0

<em>The correct answer is "B": There is now no restriction on the amount of money that organizations or individuals can give to candidates in national elections due to a ruling by </em><em>the Supreme Court. </em>

The day after the 2002 midterm elections, new federal laws concerning campaign finance which became known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), were put into effect. The BCRA increased the contribution limits for individuals who wanted to give money to federal candidates and political parties. The Federal Election Commission updated these contribution limits every two years since these limitis had to be indexed to inflation. However, since 2014,  according to a Supreme Court's decision, there is no longer a limit on how much an individual can give in total to all candidates and party committees.

You might be interested in
1<br> WE<br> Why do political parties try to<br> elect candidates to office?
erma4kov [3.2K]

Answer:

See explanation

Explanation:

So the people they elect can hopefully carry out what they want.

7 0
3 years ago
What are problems that sinclair identifies in the jungle
algol [13]
Poor conditions of food processing and workers. It caused the founding of the FDA and food regulation in America. 
6 0
3 years ago
Despite the progress of the 1920s, how did things get worse for some groups of people?
Bess [88]

Answer:

the last one

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Who committed election fraud in Mexico
Serga [27]
It was Diaz …………………..
7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which region of the U.S benefitted from the Dred Scott decision? Why?
expeople1 [14]

Answer:

The Dred scott decision benefited the slave owners the most therefore it benefited the south

Explanation:

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott case struck down the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional, maintaining that Congress had no power to forbid or abolish slavery in the territories.

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • How do industrial toxic spills harm the environment? Discuss at least three examples.
    9·2 answers
  • How were Neolithic civilizations organized? And why were writing and art important in the neolithic society?
    13·1 answer
  • What is the first great result that Roosevelt sees in all citizens having equal opportunity
    15·2 answers
  • What direct impact did the efforts of individuals like ava deer have?
    6·2 answers
  • How are presidents selected?
    10·2 answers
  • It’s time to write your report on Adolf Hitler to submit to your government..
    8·1 answer
  • Which of the following statements is true about Japan and the Ring of Fire?
    8·1 answer
  • 7. Three main types of spending used to calculate GDP
    14·1 answer
  • In what ways were West African Kingdoms considered complex, highly advanced civilizations for their time? (paragraph response)
    11·1 answer
  • Which statement is true of native Americans in the late 1700s and early 1800s​
    10·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!