John Sarbanes Quotes

Who do you think controls the Republican Party? Big money controls the Republican Party. This is where their campaign contributions come from.

A political race today, even a primary, is $150 million. The whole political system has become obscene in terms of the absurd amount of money that is required to compete. Just put it on ESPN and call it a sporting event.

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.

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.

Experience in other countries shows how big money, rather than the best political candidate, can influence politics.

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

All elections revolve around and are often resolved by who raises the most money. That's unfair. I'd like to see that process changed, but it seems once you win and get to Congress, that doesn't happen.

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

Special interests and Congress are too closely connected and the ties that bind are the millions spent on campaigns.

Much of the money raised in politics does not come free of charge.

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.

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

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

Spending limits have proven a monumental failure at limiting campaign spending in presidential elections, merely diverting the money underground.

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

I mean this is a revolution in how campaigns work - more money was spent by super PACs than by either myself or John Faso. So what that means is that if you're a voter in this district you are more likely to have heard from a super PAC than from me or my opponent.

If Republicans want to defend the rights of corporations and billionaires to spend unlimited, secret money in campaigns, then they should say so.

Well, the elected officials in both parties are receiving campaign contributions and support through electioneering communications from groups that aren't technically affiliated with the campaigns, but really are. That's the off-the-books financing of electioneering communications that's going on.

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

There is no accountability in soft money. None.

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.

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.

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

I think there's a lot of reasons for having an extended primary. I think super PACs play a role.