A big concern in the 2012 presidential election was the influence of Super PACs because they could
A. run third-party candidates.
B. limit the free speech of the party members
C. collect unlimited funds to pay for ads that advocated against candidates.
D. outspend lobbyists.
E. support comic book super heroes as presidential candidates.
The best answer to this question is Option C. The rise of super PACs made people worried because it meant (and still means) that these new kinds of PACs could raise and spend as much money as they wanted and they could openly advocate against (or for) given candidates. Some Americans think this is a bad idea because they think that this will allow a few very rich people to dominate our political process.
The other options are not really plausible. Option A is not correct because no one really thinks that a 3rd party candidate, even with a lot of money, could win a presidential election. Option B is not right because there is no way that PACs can prevent party members from speaking. Option D is not right because lobbying is not part of the election process. Option E is clearly just a joke. For these reasons, Option C is the best answer.