What does Justice Stevens say about the Court’s ruling? Corporate money will make elections more likely to reflect the public will. Corporate money will have no influence on elections. Corporate money has changed since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. Corporate money will make elections less likely to reflect the public will.

Corporate money will make elections less likely to reflect the public will

Explanation: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning campaign finance. The Court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political purposes by corporations and organisations.

Justice Stevens had a dissenting opinion which goes thus; the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.

i believe the answer is: returns on investments, no wages

people who belong in upper class society would most likely get there by obtaining multiple source of income, which a certain percentage of ownership for businesses. since most of them are job creator, they would most likely get their money from profit, not wages.

answer; lorenz;