Political Participation
How does the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 primarily seek to increase transparency in campaign finance?
Limiting the amount of time candidates can campaign.
Increasing the threshold for individual contributions to federal campaigns.
Requiring disclosure of contributions and expenditures by campaigns.
Mandating equal airtime for all candidates on public television.
How did the Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo affect individual contributions to campaigns?
It required public disclosure for all individual contributors to campaigns.
It allowed unlimited individual donations to federal campaigns.
It prohibited individuals from volunteering for campaigns.
It upheld federal limits on individual campaign contributions.
What potential consequence arises from the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) inability at times to reach a consensus due its even number of commissioners?
The requirement for unanimous consent promotes bipartisan cooperation enhancing overall accountability within election processes.
A decrease in litigation costs since deadlocked decisions reduce the likelihood that contested cases will proceed through courts.
The lack of a tie-breaking vote can lead to regulatory gridlock, hindering enforcement actions against violations or adoption of new rules.
An imbalance in commissioner partisanship can lead one party having greater influence over election oversight activities.
Which type of campaign funding source is most likely affected by individual contribution limits set forth by federal law?
Donations given anonymously through online crowdfunding platforms for political advocacy.
Direct contributions to a candidate's official campaign committee.
Funds expended by Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs) independently of a campaign’s strategy.
Independent expenditures made by individuals advocating for issues rather than candidates.
Considering proposals that limit corporate campaign expenditures, how might such regulations conflict with current interpretations of the Constitution regarding free speech protections?
Restricting corporate spending might conflict with freedom of assembly guaranteed under the First Amendment.
Corporate spending on political advocacy may be protected as free speech per Citizens United ruling.
Such regulations could infringe upon Fifth Amendment property rights if they are deemed takings without just compensation.
Limiting corporate expenditures could violate equal protection clauses by treating corporations differently than individuals.
Which Supreme Court decision is mostly likly considered precedent setting if federal legeslation was introduced limiting the ability of Super PACs?
FEC vs Wisconsin Right To Life Inc.
SpeechNow.org vs FEC
Davis Vs.Federal Electiom Commision
Randall VS Sorrell
In constructing a policy proposal that limits contributions from Political Action Committees (PACs), which Supreme Court case precedent must be considered for its constitutionality?
Shelby County v. Holder.
Buckley v. Valeo.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

How are we doing?
Give us your feedback and let us know how we can improve
Which policy has been implemented at various times by states seeking to address concerns about the impact of big money in state elections?
Set a minimum threshold for national party endorsement before allowing state-level campaigns to begin.
Restricted television and radio airtime available for political advertisements by candidates.
Public financing options for qualified candidates who agree to limit private fundraising.
Imposed a flat tax rate on all political donations regardless of amount or source.
Considering recent trends towards deregulation in campaign finance, what constitutional amendment might be proposed to fundamentally alter the trajectory set by Citizens United?
A constitutional amendment allowing congress and states to set limits on contributions and spending in elections
An amendment specifying term limits for members of congress as a method for reducing dependency on campaign contributions.
An amedment prohibiting any form of donation or expenditure not made directly from an individual citizen's personal funds.
An amendment granting personhood rights exclusively to natural persons not including corporations or unions.
Following Buckley vs Valeo, how have courts generally distinguished between contributions and expenditures?
Both contributions and expenditures are now unlimited following recent rulings overturning past precedents set by Buckley vs Valeo.
Contributions are generally more closely scrutinized than expenditures as they directly increase politicians' media buying power, impacting electorate information access.
Contributions have been deemed essential forms of free speech such that their regulation has often been found unconstitutional compared to expenditures.
Expenditures are considered expressions with greater freedom protection than contributions which may pose corruption risks if not regulated.