Question one

            Corporations, unions, and nonprofit organizations were allowed to spend unlimited funds supporting candidates as part of their First Amendment guarantee of free speech by the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens vs. FEC (2010). I disagree with this ruling due to several reasons. The allowance favors corruption because the corporations or the organization would fund a candidate would favor their operations even if they are illegal. A candidate funded by an organization can stand against the financier if the corporation does not comply with laws. Therefore, this ruling was not the best one. These bodies should remain neutral and should not fund campaigns for candidates. Free speech should apply to individuals but not corporations or nonprofit organizations. Therefore, I can't entirely agree with this Supreme Court ruling.

Question Two

            PACs have some benefits in American politics. They pool campaign contributions by accepting contributions from various sources such as individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other political committees. The purpose of this pooling of funds is to finance independent expenditures. Therefore, the benefit of PACs in American politics is financing campaigns of congressional, state, and local candidates. They pool funds from various sources to elect candidates into public offices. PACs comprise people with a common interest who come together and combine their financial efforts. They use numbers as a source of strength by combining funds in one central place to enable funding of expenditures. Therefore, the PACs play an important role in financing campaigns at all levels in the United States.