Question

According to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which of the following is not a reason to allow corporations the right to spend money and advertise for political candidates?(A) Political speech is the most important, and most protected, speech that exists. It is crucial to the democratic process that political speech be encouraged and heard.(B) The immense wealth of a corporation allows it to be the most accurate in providing messages to people.(C) Presidents and members of Congress often consult with corporate leaders on a number of issues, suppressing all corporate political speech would eliminate the ability for non-profits and smaller corporations to oppose or reject publicly the position of those larger corporations being consulted.(D) Restrictions do not protect minority or dissenting shareholders because they can address disagreement through the corporate democratic process.

Answer 1

Answer:

B) The immense wealth of a corporation allows it to be the most accurate in providing messages to people.

Explanation:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission(2010) is a Supreme Court case that arose when Citizen United tried to air a film critical of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, shortly before the Democratic primary election of 2008. The Supreme Court held a landmark decision that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from disallowing independent expenditures, such that would concern the film by Citizens United, for political communications or campaigns by corporations, not excluding

labor unions, nonprofit corporations, and other associations.

The rationale for this decision didn't however consider the wealth of corporations as an accurate means of providing messages to people.