Question

In the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the Court ruled that political action committees (PACs) could accept unlimited contributions for making _____. a. concentrated benefits​ b. independent expenditures​ c. ​ dispersed costs d. tax exempts​ e. bundled expenditures​

Answer 1

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.