Stephen Colbert Quotes

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

We have to talk about the way we finance campaigns.

There is no accountability in soft money. None.

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.

Politics has become so expensive that it takes a lot of money even to be defeated.

When you buy toothpaste or detergent or gas, that is now used for the first time in your lifetime or my lifetime to support candidates in so-called 'independent ads.' Same thing for unions.

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

Money in politics is a huge issue.

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

American politics is money and thirty second spots.

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

I will not be doing Super-Pacs of any sort. I think allowing unlimited contributions to campaigns is a terrible and an unfortunate step towards plutocracy.

Money is the mother's milk of politics

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!

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

The money in politics is a cash cow for the media.

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

Both Obama and Romney are just rolling in PAC money. Plus, they have the super PAC's behind them. They've got multi-millionaires and billionaires just buying 30-second ads. It gives each of them tremendous exposure.

You shouldn't have political action committees.

The Koch brothers spent millions against me.

I'm not backed by the super PACs and the big corporations.

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.

While normal people have to disclose donations directly to a candidate, there is no such transparency on people donating to certain types of nonprofit organizations that can play a major role in our elections.

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.

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.