Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
On January 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court reached one of its most controversial decisions in years, with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.1 The opinion overturned long-standing precedents that forbade corporations from using unlimited monies from their general funds for political speech — specifically, for advertisements supporting or opposing candidates for elected office, in the weeks and months before certain elections. Although it may not initially appear to concern health, Citizens United has important implications for health care providers and public health. The Court has effectively opened the financial floodgates to give corporations unprecedented influence over the election . . .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rutkow et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: