Wayne Messam Quotes

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

We need a complete ban on soft money, which is sort of an enveloping problem, and a ceiling on the amount of money that can be spent on a given race.

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

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

The money in politics is a cash cow for the media.

You shouldn't have political action committees.

Wealthy individuals have always had the capacity to influence politics, of course, but only after two key campaign finance cases - Wisconsin Right to Life and and Citizens United, have they been able to do it in such a large and blatant way.

Running on corporate-PAC money is a huge liability.

While normal people have to disclose donations directly to a candidate, there is no such transparency on people donating to certain types of nonprofit organizations that can play a major role in our elections.

Unless public officials are wealthy and fund their own campaigns, the only place they can turn to is lobbyists and institutions like labor unions and corporations.

A 527 doesn't have a wife. It doesn't have a brother-in-law who knows a lot about politics, or a union president who calls and doesn't like the color of the suit, or bimbo eruptions. It's the perfect candidate, because it has no personal characteristics.

There is no evidence that super PACs have led to a greater percentage of negative ads.

By law, super PACs are required to disclose their donors. There are groups that have never had to disclose their donors, non-profits such as the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, the NAACP, and the NRA. If you want more disclosure, super PACs are a step forward.

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.'

I also do not like the idea of soft money, these issue ads - people don't know where the money is coming from, millions and millions of dollars outside of the control of a candidate - there's no accountability.

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.

Politics has become so expensive that it takes a lot of money even to be defeated.

When you buy toothpaste or detergent or gas, that is now used for the first time in your lifetime or my lifetime to support candidates in so-called 'independent ads.' Same thing for unions.

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

Soft money is the silent killer of health care reform and other legislation we need.

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.

What is a super PAC? It’s like a PAC that got bitten by a radioactive lobbyist.

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.