To reduce the influence of money in politics.

To increase voter turnout.

To promote transparency in campaign spending.

To limit the number of terms a politician can serve.

Contribution limits

Spending limits

Public financing

Term limits

They limit the amount of money that an individual or organization can contribute to a candidate or political party.

They limit the amount of money that a candidate or political party can spend on their campaign.

They require candidates and political parties to disclose their campaign contributions.

They provide public funding for candidates and political parties.

To reduce the amount of money spent on political campaigns.

To ensure that all candidates have equal access to resources.

To prevent candidates from using their personal wealth to fund their campaigns.

All of the above

A system in which the government provides funding for candidates and political parties.

A system in which private individuals and organizations provide funding for candidates and political parties.

A system in which candidates and political parties raise money through donations from individuals and organizations.

A system in which candidates and political parties are prohibited from raising money from individuals and organizations.

Reduced influence of money in politics.

Increased voter turnout.

More competitive elections.

All of the above

Reduced free speech rights for candidates and political parties.

Increased government control over elections.

Less competitive elections.

All of the above

Increased polarization.

Increased voter turnout.

Reduced influence of special interests.

More competitive elections.

A law that banned soft money contributions to political parties.

A law that raised the contribution limits for individuals and organizations.

A law that provided public financing for presidential elections.

A law that limited the amount of money that candidates could spend on their campaigns.

A Supreme Court case that upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

A Supreme Court case that struck down the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

A Supreme Court case that upheld the public financing of presidential elections.

A Supreme Court case that struck down the public financing of presidential elections.

It has led to an increase in the amount of money spent on political campaigns.

It has led to a decrease in the amount of money spent on political campaigns.

It has had no impact on the amount of money spent on political campaigns.

It is too early to tell what the impact has been.

The First Amendment's free speech guarantee.

The influence of special interests.

The lack of public support for reform.

All of the above

Amend the Constitution.

Pass new laws.

Educate the public about the issue.

All of the above

It is likely that campaign finance reform will become more restrictive in the future.

It is likely that campaign finance reform will become less restrictive in the future.

It is likely that campaign finance reform will remain the same in the future.

It is too early to tell what the future of campaign finance reform will be.