Which statement accurately describes super pacs?
a. most of the money spent by super pacs is considered hard
money, as it goes directly to candidates and parties.
b. to receive funds from a super pac, a party candidate must have
received at least 5 percent of the popular vote in the previous
election.
c. super pacs can spend any amount supporting a candidate, as
long as they do not work directly with the candidate's campaign.
o
d. the federal election commission tightly regulates how much
money super pacs spend.

The correct answer is C. Super PACs can spend any amount supporting a candidate, as  long as they do not work directly with the candidate's campaign.

Explanation:

A Political Action Committee (PAC) is a type of lobby group that deals with influencing elections, legislation and other political issues. In addition to interest groups, politicians also set up Political Action Committees to organize their collection of money. Political Action Committees are legally regulated by the states and by the federal government. Under the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act, an organization is considered PAC if it receives or spends more than a thousand US dollars in money with the purpose of influencing a federal election.  

When a stakeholder group, trade union or company wants to contribute to federal election candidates or parties, this must be done through a Political Action Committee. Collecting money is only permitted within a limited group, for example shareholders of a company. Those who do not fall under the limited group may nevertheless often contribute by supporting the administration and the collection process. Contributions are limited to $5000 per year per donor.

Since 2010, it has been possible to set up a Super PAC, officially an independent expenditure only committee. This is a PAC that can only do "independent spending", which cannot therefore be coordinated with a federal election candidate or political party.

an informal structure in a bureaucracy would be something like so-called "office politics". where there's a formal structure set up for the organization, but then an informal subculture as well that has a way of organizing the bureaucracy further. this can be positive because it sets up an added degree of organization, albeit informal, within the bureaucracy.