Which of the following is NOT legal under the current federal presidential campaign financing laws? a. A person or group can contribute unlimited funds to a political campaign.

b. A person or group can contribute unlimited funds to a "voter education" campaign.

c. Aperson or group can spend unlimited funds on an ad for a particular issue without mentioning a candidate.

d. A person or group can spend unlimited funds to oppose a candidate.

a. A person or group can contribute unlimited funds to a political campaign.

Explanation:

An Individual can contribute ~$2800 per a political campaign, while a group can contribute ~2000 - 5000 per political campaign.

~

it was certainly a debatable decision, mainly because it was based primarily on political - and not on legal or social - views. since the congress at that time was led by members of the republican party, and the territory that the tribes wanted to turn into an exclusively indian state was predominantly democratic, the proposal (as expressed in the constitution) did not succeed, but the constitution itself proved to be of crucial importance in the creation of the state of oklahoma, and, most importantly, it guaranteed the involvement of representatives of the indian tribes in the government of the future joint state.  

as a member of congress, i would have voted to ratify the constitution, or at least to have it tabled. ignoring it was an interested and partial decision.  

um is there supposed to be choices?