In 1–2 sentences, analyze why critics of super PACs argue that the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC has increased the freedom of speech of wealthy individuals and groups, but not of the average American.

1 answer

Critics argue that the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC has increased the freedom of speech of wealthy individuals and groups because they are able to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns through super PACs. However, the average American does not have the same financial means to influence elections in the same way, leading to concerns about the disproportionate influence of money in politics.
Similar Questions
    1. answers icon 1 answer
  1. What BEST describes the role of Super PACs in elections?A. Super PACs are an old part of American elections. B. Individuals
    1. answers icon 2 answers
  2. Question 1Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 A)Which of the following correctly analyzes the effect the Supreme
    1. answers icon 1 answer
  3. Worcester v. Georgia, 1832 Supreme Court CaseThe Cherokee Nation, led by Chief John Ross, went to the Supreme Court to argue
    1. answers icon 1 answer
more similar questions