AP US Government · Supreme Court cases
A corporation uses treasury funds to pay for an advertisement expressly advocating the election of a federal candidate. The advertisement…
A corporation uses treasury funds to pay for an advertisement expressly advocating the election of a federal candidate. The advertisement is produced independently and is not coordinated with the candidate's campaign. Which statement best reflects the required precedent in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission?
Answer and explanation
Answer: B: The independent expenditure is protected political speech, although the decision did not eliminate all legal limits on direct contributions to candidates
Citizens United held that independent political expenditures by corporations are protected speech, so a ban on this uncoordinated advertisement fails, while direct contributions to candidates remain subject to separate limits. B is correct. Choice A is tempting because corporations are not people, but the Court rejected a categorical ban on this speech. Choice C allows a ban whenever an ad might influence voters, but influencing voters is inherent in political advocacy. Choice D requires converting spending into a contribution, confusing two legally distinct categories.
More Supreme Court cases questions
- Question 3Which required Supreme Court case most directly strengthened the national side of the…
- Question 10An indigent defendant charged with a felony in state court is denied appointed counsel. Which…
- Question 13(C) Explain how the decision in Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L. reflects the principle of…
Learn the method behind questions like this one
The AP US Government course teaches each tested skill through lessons, step-by-step solutions to sample problems, the complete study guide and full-length practice tests.