Amy Klobuchar Quotes

I said during the course of the campaign I didn't like it and I don't like the idea of having an opponent's picture on your ads and it would be nice to see candidates sign a pledge like that.

A lot of the Citizens United problem could be solved if we knew where the money came from for all these ads. The companies create these entities with fake names - like 'Citizens for Nice Puppies' - which means that the sources of the money are unaccountable.

If people are going to donate huge sums of money to influence elections, we have the right to know who is donating, and this will also play a key role in helping to fight off foreign influence in our elections.

We obviously - I'm from Michigan, so we saw a disproportionate number of these social media ads targeting us, targeting our population. So I want to close that loophole. That's my amendment, so that no foreign entity can buy an ad for or against a candidate in our democracy.

I am extremely passionate about digital media and as a longtime user and fan of Yahoo!

New online formats gutted the newspaper-ad business. Why pore over tiny print looking for a job in the want ads when you can tap a few keywords into monster.com, then click through and apply? Why pay a steep per-character rate for a classified when you can hawk a whole garage full of used stuff on EBay or Craigslist for free?

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

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.'

The American people have a right to know the source of the money that is being spent. They should be told who is behind the millions of dollars in campaign ads, and they should receive this information before they vote.

The Tea Party elites gained extraordinary influence by being able to funnel millions of undisclosed dollars into campaigns with ads that distort the truth and attack government.

We know what's in our Cheerios and in our retirement accounts because the law requires disclosure.

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.

As Members of Congress we can now engage with our constituents via online innovations like the Huffington Post, while a small business in rural Oregon can use the Internet to find customers around the world.

So paid media is when you buy an ad - typically in a presidential campaign that will be in Iowa, New Hampshire, the early states. It costs some money to make the ad, but the greatest cost is in actually placing the ad on TV.

It's pretty clear that Americans have a strong interest in knowing who's trying to influence their vote in elections.

The elections are run by the same industries that sell toothpaste on television.

If the publicly passed campaign finance laws had not been struck down by the Supreme Court, Club for Growth Action would be illegal, and Heritage Action wouldn't have the SuperPAC threat to back up its small ad purchases.

We must reduce the influence of money in politics, beginning by overturning Citizens United and taking back our system from the millionaires and billionaires who can give unlimited and undisclosed amounts of money to influence our elections.

The FTC doesn't regulate political speech.

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.

We count on the FEC to be the public's watchdog.

The solution to voters potentially being misled by a judicial candidate's political speech is more speech - not government censorship.

It's fairly obvious, since Richard Nixon, that there is no such thing as a fair deal for any voter in the United States -- You're just not gonna get it. It's a joke -- the people that you vote for, they're the next best thing to criminals. But of course they have money for advertising campaigns that make them look a little bit better than they actually are.

With all their attack ads, the President is just throwing away money...and he's pretty experienced at that.

The votes elected officials make should be based on the best interests of the American people, not the fear of retribution when shadowy groups spend millions of dollars on negative advertisements.