What impact did the "Citizens United" decision have on political campaigns?

The "Citizens United" decision, issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010, fundamentally changed the landscape of political campaign financing. This ruling held that corporations and unions are entitled to free speech protections under the First Amendment, which includes the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns through independent expenditures. As a result, the decision allowed wealthy individuals and entities to contribute significantly more financial resources to political campaigns, leading to an influx of spending in elections.

This adjustment has led to the formation of Super PACs (Political Action Committees) that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against candidates, paving the way for greater influence in elections by affluent donors. Consequently, the ruling intensified concerns about the potential for wealthy individuals and corporations to sway political outcomes, thereby altering the democratic process in favor of those with substantial financial resources.

The options suggesting reduced corporate influence, increased transparency, or stricter donation limits do not align with the fundamental implications of the "Citizens United" decision, which instead emphasized and expanded the role of money in politics.