Jane Mayer Quotes

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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!

We have to talk about the way we finance campaigns.

The best way to shine a light on all of this 'dark money' flooding into our elections would be for Congress to pass legislation requiring all organizations to disclose their political spending in a timely manner.

Citizens United didn't work. Hey, Koch brothers, Karl Rove, Shellgame Adelson: Democracy trumps money sometimes.

We've already seen other candidates set up these secretive super PACs where they don't take any responsibility for what they're funding... because that's how the game has always been played. I've been very proud to tell people, 'I'm stepping forward, and you can see every single one of our donors.'

The identity of political donors should be disclosed and bureaucratic rules should not circumvent the original intent of federal law or interfere with the public's ability to hold these organizations accountable.

It's too bad American electoral races aren't as transparent as NASCAR races.

Citizens United said that transparency would be the disinfectant, but (c)(4)'s are warm, wet, moist incubators. There is no disinfectant.

In fact, corporate and union moneys go overwhelmingly to incumbents, so limiting that money, as Congress did in the campaign finance law, may be the single most self-denying thing that Congress has ever done.

Anyone who has been around Washington politics long enough can't avoid this truism: Election-year money is like a rushing river that invariably finds cracks in any dam the reformers erect.

Corporations are not people. They shouldn't be funding. They shouldn't be funding campaigns at all.

And, you know, money is - the money edge is really dangerous to democracy. Because what you have right now - people have said to me that, look, you'll always be outspent, so how can you ever win?

I do not believe wealthy candidates should spend vast resources in their own campaigns.

Unfortunately, money in politics is an insidious thing - and a loophole in our campaign finance system was taken advantage of with money going to existing or new 527 groups with the sole purpose of influencing the election.

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

I think the idea of getting money out of politics is critical.

I've made it clear that I'm not taking special interest PAC money or accepting donations from lobbyists - ever. I want to represent the interests of the citizens.

I'm convinced that unless you have some public financing of elections, you are never going to remove the power of wealthy interests over elected officials.