An opponent of the citizens united v. federal election commission ruling

would most likely agree with which statement?

a. spending money is a form of speech that must be protected under

the first amendment.

o

b. a business has the right to spend its money to elect

candidates it supports.

o

c. unlimited corporate campaign spending will weaken citizens'

influence over their leaders.

d. political leaders are unlikely to grant favors to those who give

them campaign contributions.

C. Unlimited corporate campaign spending will weaken citizens' influence over their leaders.

Explanation:

The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling was delivered by the U.S. Supreme Court on 21st January 2010 where it was held that the law that prevented corporations and unions from using their treasury money for political advertising violated the First Amendment 's guarantee freedom of speech. This simply means, corporations and unions can use their treasury money to finance election and the law preventing it is wrong.

Therefore an opponent to this ruling will not support corporations and unions to use their treasury funds to finance election because it will weaken the citizen's influence over their leaders. The decision was like the U.S Supreme court rewriting the campaign finance law and this will allow corporations and unions who have a special interest in election to sponsor election with their money without any limit.

answer:

it doesnt make sense bro make more sense

explanation: