Choose the best answer, check your reasoning, and use the explanation to correct any gap.
All questions and explanations are available below. Turn on JavaScript for instant scoring.
Question 1 of 4
B. Direct transfers create a more immediate concern about quid pro quo corruption or its appearance
A direct transfer can create a more immediate risk that money is exchanged for official action, or appears to be. Independent expenditures remain under an outside speaker's control and receive stronger protection. Equalizing influence is not the controlling anticorruption rationale, and independent spending can still be reported.
Question 2 of 4
C. A traditional PAC may make regulated candidate contributions; a Super PAC finances independent expenditures
A traditional PAC may make direct candidate contributions within applicable limits and may also make expenditures. A Super PAC is an independent-expenditure-only committee: it may raise unlimited funds for that purpose but may not contribute directly or coordinate its spending. Both operate under reporting rules.
Question 3 of 4
D. An independent expenditure subject to applicable reporting and disclaimer duties
The association controls the vendor, message, audience, and payment and has no contact with a candidate or party, so the express electoral communication is an independent expenditure. Independence does not create secrecy: applicable reporting and sponsor-identification duties may still attach. Shared policy goals and electoral benefit do not establish coordination.
Question 4 of 4
A. The disclosed state-party account is nonfederal (soft) money; the donor-opaque nonprofit spending is dark money
Money in a state-party account governed by nonfederal rules can be fully disclosed; its nonfederal, or soft-money, status concerns which regulatory system governs it, not whether donors are public. The nonprofit's sponsor may be visible while its underlying general-purpose donors remain hidden, creating the source-level opacity described as dark money.