What did the Supreme Court determine in the context of campaign finance with the ruling in Citizen's United v. FEC?

• A. Campaign financing must be publicly disclosed
• B. Corporations can finance issues without limits
• C. Minors cannot contribute to certain campaigns
• D. Campaign advertisements must be sourced from individual creators

Answer: (B)

The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC fundamentally reshaped the landscape of campaign finance by determining that the government cannot restrict independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. This landmark decision argued that such spending is a form of protected free speech under the First Amendment. As a result, the ruling effectively allows corporations to invest unlimited amounts of money in political campaigns, as long as the spending is independent of the candidates' official campaigns.

With this decision, the court asserted that businesses have the same rights as individuals when it comes to political speech, allowing them to support candidates or causes with significant financial contributions. This decision sparked significant debate over the role of money in politics, often raising concerns about the influence of wealthy entities on elections and potential corruption.

The other options do not accurately reflect the primary outcome of the ruling. While issues of transparency and public disclosure in campaign financing are important, they were not the focus of the Citizens United decision. Minors' involvement in campaign contributions and the sourcing of campaign advertisements also fall outside the scope of the ruling’s implications regarding corporate financing.