Tom Steyer Quotes

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

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.

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

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.'

I have introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and make it clear that the Congress and state legislatures do have the ability and the power to regulate and get corporate funding out of political campaigns.

We need a complete ban on soft money, which is sort of an enveloping problem, and a ceiling on the amount of money that can be spent on a given race.

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

Citizens United provided unprecedented political weaponry to big special interests. My personal view was it was calculated to do that.

Citizens United was no victory for free speech.

You shouldn't have political action committees.

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.

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.

Citizens United opened a door that's frustrated anyone who's looking.

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

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

More money is being spent on our elections, with less disclosure of where that money is coming from, than ever before.

Stemming the tide of special interest campaign cash - and restoring fiscal responsibility in Congress - is no easy task. But there is one place where concerned citizens in both parties can begin: Changing the source of money that funds all campaigns.

After Citizens United, unlimited money could go directly to a corporate entity that can tell people who to vote for, with names and polling places included.

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.

The Citizens United ruling opened the door for tax-exempt social welfare organizations to spend substantial portions of their funds on campaign activities, without having to disclose where that money came from.

In the Senate, I will push to overturn Citizens United as I've been vocal about since I first served on the Town Council.

Either you're for ending Citizens United, or you're not. So, if you're for ending Citizens United, then act like you are against corporations influencing our democratic process.

History will record that the Citizens United decision is one of the worst in the history of our country.

Here is what the practical impact of Citizens United means. What Citizens United means is that corporations call hundreds of millions of dollars into television ads, radio ads, and other forms of advertising to defeat those candidates who stand up and take them on.

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