What was the supplementary effect of "Citizens United" supreme court decision?

The "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision, made in 2010, had significant implications for campaign finance in the United States. The ruling established that corporations and unions have the same political free speech rights as individuals, allowing them to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising and advocacy. This led to the creation of various new financing avenues for donors, particularly through Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts on behalf of candidates, although they cannot coordinate directly with campaigns.

The decision effectively removed previous restrictions on independent expenditures, thus broadening the scope for corporate and organizational funding in elections. This change contributed to a dramatic increase in the amount of money flowing into U.S. elections, transforming how campaigns are funded and emphasizing the role of large donors and special interest groups in the political landscape.

In contrast, other options such as increased voting rights and stricter campaign regulations do not capture the primary impact of the ruling, as the decision did not directly address voting access or impose new regulations; rather, it deregulated aspects of campaign financing. Enhanced transparency for donations was not a supplementary effect either, as the ruling led to less transparency regarding the sources of campaign funding, which has raised concerns about the influence of money in politics.