James Bennet Quotes

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

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.

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.

Money has too big an influence on our politics in Washington and somehow we need to do something about that.

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

Our current Supreme Court, in the Citizens United case, took that which had been named corrupt for over 200 years [gifts to politicians] and renamed it legitimate..

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

I would do away with super PACs. I think it's a cancer.

The reality is that asking the public to fund political campaigns accomplishes nothing. Candidates continue to seek interest-group support through other channels, both financial and in-kind, and corruption problems abound.

I can tell you that too much money is corrupting American politics. Don't blame the American public. The U.S. Supreme Court has a lot to answer for, because it has made it impossible for Congress to reduce the corrupting influence of money on American political life.

The American system of political spending is so unregulated that it might make Adam Smith rethink free markets.

The principal reasons that special interests can extract their price from government is money .... Those who do not accept money from PACs are those who have other sources.

Money in politics is like ants in your kitchen. You close all the holes and get them all out or they'll find their way in again.

Money in politics leads to bad things—and I am bipartisan in that view.

It challenges a linguist to define modern campaign contributions as something other than bribery.

Our democratic system is slowly being corroded and eroded by the influence of PAC money.

This [political fundraising] is a very sophisticated system … This is a legalized bribery system where no one has to say anything. I don’t have to say what I want—you [the politician] know what I want.

The evils of the use of corporate money in connection with political elections are so generally recognized that the committee deems it unnecessary to make any argument in favor of the general purpose of this measure.

History’s pendulum is now swinging back toward the day when political finances were only lightly regulated.

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

What we have are - some of the big political donors behind the super PACs are big on promoting more of these trade agreements which cost us jobs - another reason that we need to end political action committees and have only individual donations with their donations being disclosed completely with names and addresses and other information.

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.

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 role of money in politics is a major problem and particularly the role of unchecked anonymous money.

From campaign contributions to expensive perks paid for by special interests, wealthy donors and corporate special interests have increasingly been able to purchase influence and promote their agendas in Congress.