Read Justice John Paul Stevens's dissenting opinion in the Citizens United case.
At bottom, 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.
-Justice Stevens
Dissenting Opinion
Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission
What does Justice Stevens say about the Court's ruling?
O
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.

The correct answer is D. Corporate money will make elections less likely to reflect the public will.

Explanation

According to the fragment of the question, it can be affirmed that Judge Stevens's opinion on the court ruling is in disagreement with the court ruling because he considers this to be "a rejection of the common sense of the American people" regarding the "corporate electoral campaign since the days of Theodore Roosevelt", arguing that corporate money would manipulate the results of an election and prevent the public from deciding the elections. Therefore, the correct answer is D. Corporate money will make elections less likely to reflect the public will.

explanation:

hitler's  "rise" can be considered to have ended in march 1933, after the reichstag adopted the enabling act of 1933 in that month. president paul von hindenburg had already appointedhitler  as chancellor on 30 january 1933 after a series of parliamentary elections and associated backroom intrigues.