Foster Friess Quotes

Spending limits have proven a monumental failure at limiting campaign spending in presidential elections, merely diverting the money underground.

More money is being spent on our elections, with less disclosure of where that money is coming from, than ever before.

A million dollars in the presidential election is a spit in the ocean. It's not a lot of money.

Well I think money has been going into political campaigns for a very long time.

Public [campaign] financing and free television time are the things that will diminish the high influence that money has on politics.

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

Most important of all the structural reforms, we need to follow through on the recent Congressional effort to discipline the use of money in politics, by setting reasonable limits on campaign spending, limiting and publicizing individual and organizational gifts and channeling much more of the money (including … all general election spending) through the respective party committees rather than through individual candidates’ treasuries.

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

Here is what the practical impact of Citizens United means. What Citizens United means is that corporations call hundreds of millions of dollars into television ads, radio ads, and other forms of advertising to defeat those candidates who stand up and take them on.

Who do you think controls the Republican Party? Big money controls the Republican Party. This is where their campaign contributions come from.

I think we have to look at the whole way campaigns are financed. The No. 1 problem is PAC and special-interest money.

The Citizens United ruling did not invent special-interest spending; it enables corporations and unions to advocate directly on behalf of a candidate rather than running more subtle 'issue ads.'

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.

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.

The McCain-Feingold limit on how much you give a candidate didn't really work because people found ways to get around it.

As long as we, in the United States, continue to insist that our politicians have to spend all of their time raising millions of dollars for television ads, it will be corrupt. If we leave it up to the politicians to clean up lobbying and finance reform, nothing is going to change.

Soft money will find its way and seep into the political system and corrode it, unless we plug every hole.

Campaign finance reform is vital. It is impossible for us to win, especially in committees, because we can never outbid the opposition.

It is not that candidates who get the most money win, but that winning candidates get the most money.

The campaign finance law is so intricate that I can’t figure it out.

All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law.

I will not be doing Super-Pacs of any sort. I think allowing unlimited contributions to campaigns is a terrible and an unfortunate step towards plutocracy.

We agree that Citizens United is a very bad decision. We don't believe outspending your opponent is the way to go, since we don't believe we will ever be outspending our opponents!

Until we make campaigns affordable, then we're going to have too many members of Congress out rattling the cup with special interest groups.

We have to talk about the way we finance campaigns.