John McCain Quotes

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.

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.

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

Five years ago, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 decision in the Citizens United case told the richest people in America, "You already control the economy of the country. We are now going to let you control the political system as well".

At a time when concerns about the conduct of judicial elections have reached a fever pitch, the court today unleashes the floodgates of corporate and union general treasury spending in these races.

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

Unlimited campaign spending eats at the heart of the democratic process.

Until we totally change the way we elect our leaders, until we remove private money from public campaigns, lying will be the de facto method of governance in this country.

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.

I don't think politicians should be allowed to take money for their campaigns from outside interests.

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.

Spending limits not only do not work, they have the perverse effect of making special interests more powerful and more influential.

The spree of big money campaigning—and the corruption that goes with it—seems guaranteed to worsen …. Campaign money handlers will keep pushing the limits wherever and however they can—and the integrity of our electoral system will pay the price.

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

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.

Not since the gilded age has our politics been opened so wide to corporate contribution and donations from secret sources.

And when the guy [politician] says “Yes, I took money, but it didn’t influence my vote”? Oh, come on. The company that’s giving you the money thinks it is going to influence the vote. Why else would they give you the money?

It's time to review what damage the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has done to our political system.

Let's move forward to try to address the most egregious and outrageous corrupting aspect of campaigns in America today and that is the incredible inundation of soft money and its pernicious effects.

In constant pursuit of money to finance campaigns, the political system is simply unable to function. Its deliberative powers are paralyzed.

As a consequence, the Court ruled that the limits on campaign spending violated the First Amendment, but it accepted the $1,000 limit on individual contributions on the ground that the need to avoid the appearance of corruption justified this limited constraint on speech.

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.

Few developments in campaigning have been as vilified and misunderstood as independent expenditure PACs, or, as they are colloquially known, super PACs.

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