Elissa Slotkin Quotes

It's pretty clear that Americans have a strong interest in knowing who's trying to influence their vote in elections.

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.

There is no evidence that super PACs have led to a greater percentage of negative ads.

Corporations serve an important purpose, but telling people how to vote isn't one of them.

Republicans support opening the floodgates to special interest money and suppressing the right to vote. It's just plain wrong.

The SuperPACs and the Citizens United ruling that gives corporations a voice in the political process are all bad news. They made it so you can now lie, and the politician being promoted on that lie will not be held responsible for it.

Our only real hope for democracy is that we get the money out of politics entirely and establish a system of publicly funded elections.

Campaign ads are the backbone of American democracy if American democracy suffered a gigantic spinal injury.

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.

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.

If candidates spend money on ads and other political speech and their opponents are rewarded with government handouts to attack them, that chills speech and is unconstitutional. Non-participating candidates certainly don't volunteer to allow their opponents to receive taxpayer subsidies to bash them.

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.'

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.

I also do not like the idea of soft money, these issue ads - people don't know where the money is coming from, millions and millions of dollars outside of the control of a candidate - there's no accountability.

But having said that, what's happening with campaign finance reform and our political culture is devastating.

I said during the course of the campaign I didn't like it and I don't like the idea of having an opponent's picture on your ads and it would be nice to see candidates sign a pledge like that.

Democracy, if it meant what our forefathers said, that would be great, but unfortunately it's been corrupted by this funding and funding of campaigns. There's a much better way to do it. There could be a small amount of money given by every taxpayer to be dedicated to candidates.

It starts with campaign finance reform.

The DISCLOSE Act is a testament to the wisdom of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. The First Amendment sought to place political speech beyond the government's control, and we can be glad that it did.

The FCC has a moral obligation to protect the public from being ‘blitzed’ and ‘saturated’ with campaign ads.

A few people have big free speech and the rest of us have little free speech. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was decided wrongly.

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.

It is very dangerous for a government, judge or jury to determine what is deceptive advertising in a political context…. We pay a price for freedom of speech, and that price includes falsehoods that can be repeated thousands of time.

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

When billionaires can give $50 million, $500 million to a campaign, and there's no limit, then it makes a mockery of 'one man, one vote.'