What are the arguments that agree (i. e., support), and disagree (i. e., against) with the 2010 U. S. Supreme Court decision that ruled the First Amendment right to free speech was violated by the Federal Election Commission’s restrictions on campaign contributions by corporations and unions?

There is no short answer.

Explanation:

  The mentioned decision was about whether the corporations and unions can or can not contribute financially to the campaigns of the politicians they want to support as long as the corporations themselves are independent of the campaigns.

  One of the strongest disagreements to this was that this action was going to allow the corporations to flood selected politicians' campaigns with money, maybe corporations outside of US.

  One of the arguments that agree with the decision was that the corporations also have a right of free speech including supporting their chosen political candidates even though corporations are not individual people.

I hope this answer helps.

explanation:

i think it is in quadrant 4.

the five year plans were part of a command economy. there was little choice in what would be emphasized for the current 5 year period.

the answer to democracy or totalitarianism is a bit harder. in stalin's time, russia was totalitarian. now that's not entirely true. putin has moved towards at least the boundary.