James L. Buckley Quotes

There's nothing in the First Amendment that even remotely talks about spending money for political contests, and to say that an individual can spend as much of his or her own money as he or she wants constitutionally without any limitation, I think is just absurd.

One of the biggest issues for me is campaign finance reform.

Spending limits not only do not work, they have the perverse effect of making special interests more powerful and more influential.

The most misguided, naïve, uninformed, egregious decision of the United States Supreme Court … in the 21st century. To somehow view money as not having a corrupting effect on an election flies in the face of reality. I just think that just one of the five had run for county sheriff. I guarantee you … there will be scandals. There is too much money washing around political campaigns today, and it will take scandals and maybe the Supreme Court will go back and revisit this issue

The decision in Citizens United said that money equals speech, a position that I - and a vast majority of Americans, in poll after poll - could not disagree with more.

The Federal campaign contribution limit of $2,500 is way too low. You can’t even buy a Democrat for $2,500.

The decision in McCutcheon v. FEC is a devastating blow in efforts to rein in out-of-control costs of campaigns.

In rendering its decision in our case, the Supreme Court equated money with speech because these days it takes the first to make yourself heard.

We need to get rid of the Federal Elections Commission. It's a joke. It doesn't enforce the law.

People have their constitutional right to contribute to a campaign and if they have discretionary money that they want to contribute to a candidate, whether a Republican or a Democrat, they should be able to do so.

But having said that, what's happening with campaign finance reform and our political culture is devastating.

Few developments in campaigning have been as vilified and misunderstood as independent expenditure PACs, or, as they are colloquially known, super PACs.

I certainly want campaign finance reform. I just wish this would do it in a way that would stand up to a constitutional challenge.

All elections revolve around and are often resolved by who raises the most money. That's unfair. I'd like to see that process changed, but it seems once you win and get to Congress, that doesn't happen.

Money is speech. It's incongruous to say a multimillionaire can spend as much on his own campaign as he wants, but you can only give $2,300. His free speech rights are different from yours, thus violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. It's absurd.

It starts with campaign finance reform.

The number one lobby that opposes campaign finance reform in the United States is the National Association of Broadcasters.

The DISCLOSE Act is a testament to the wisdom of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. The First Amendment sought to place political speech beyond the government's control, and we can be glad that it did.

Five years ago, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 decision in the Citizens United case told the richest people in America, "You already control the economy of the country. We are now going to let you control the political system as well".

The goal of limiting campaign contributions is to find that line between contributions that are so high that a candidate feels beholden to a donor and contribution levels that are so low that a non-incumbent candidate has little chance of making an effective race.

While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

If you can deregulate money in politics, then you can buy the policy outcomes you prefer.

I am willing to undergo the disadvantage in order to make certain that in the future we shall reduce the power of money in politics..

This Court now concludes that independent [political] expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.

That would be the biggest shake-up Washington ever had, if big money didn't dictate who the candidates were and who got elected.