The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) sought to limit campaign contributions in an effort to reduce the influence large donors have on elected representatives. The Supreme Court has, however, declared sections of the BCRA unconstitutional. In 2007, the Court held that the 30 and 60 day limits placed on issue advocacy ads (advertisements run by an individual or interest group that focus on an issue instead of a candidate – but it can imply that you should vote for a specific candidate, so it helps that candidate) were unconstitutional, opening the door to issue advocacy ads throughout the election cycle. And, in 2008, the Court overturned another provision of the act that had attempted to limit the amount of a candidate’s own money that could be spend on running for office. More recently, in 2010, the Court handed down a decision in Citizens United v. FEC that declared unconstitutional the BCRA’s ban on ads made by corporations and unions. This decision struck a significant blow to BCRA’s provisions and increased the power of interest groups and corporations in campaigns and elections. Why would someone want to limit campaign contributions?What effect do campaign contributions have on elected representatives?Should corporations, unions, and interest groups have the same freedom of speech (and freedom to donate money to campaigns as a form of speech) as individual people? Why or why not?Do you think that the Supreme Court’s decisions to allow more campaign contributions and issue advocacy ads increased or decreased campaign spending?