The table below displays different potential comparisons between two landmark campaign finance cases decided by the Supreme Court:
| Comparison | *Buckley v. Valeo* (1976) | *Citizens United v. FEC* (2010) |
|---|---|---|
| I | Upheld federal limits on individual campaign contributions to candidates. | Struck down bans on independent expenditures by corporations and labor unions. |
| II | Ruled that political spending is not protected by the First Amendment. | Allowed corporations to donate unlimited funds directly to candidates' campaigns. |
| III | Ruled that candidates cannot spend unlimited amounts of their own personal money. | Upheld restrictions on corporate-sponsored electioneering communications. |
| IV | Declared traditional political action committees (PACs) unconstitutional. | Limited political advocacy and independent expenditures to participatory interest groups. |
Which of the comparisons in the table is accurate?
- Comparison ICevap
- BComparison II
- CComparison III
- DComparison IV
Cevap
Comparison I
Comparison I is correct because *Buckley v. Valeo* (1976) ruled that the government could limit direct contributions to candidate campaigns to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption, while *Citizens United v. FEC* (2010) struck down limits on independent political expenditures by corporations and labor unions, ruling that such expenditures are protected speech under the First Amendment.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Distinguishing judicial precedents on campaign finance, contribution limits, and corporate independent expenditures under the First Amendment.