Campaign Contributions, Contribution Limits, Campaign Contributors Quotes

This is a very important historical and political quotation. The first clause shows us that earmarks and private bills for the benefit of individuals and their commercial enterprises are not a new form of corruption; they have existed ever since there have been legislatures.

The most important aspect of this quotation is the SECOND clause. Very frequently, this is quoted alone without the context of the first clause. Taken alone, the meaning seems to be that the more corrupt governments pass the most laws, and there is an implication that fewer laws mean less corruption. This interpretation fits perfectly with the conservative ideology of the late 20th and early 21st centuries that believed that the smaller the government, the better; the fewer the laws passed, the better. However with the context of the first clause, we see that what Tacitus was criticizing the legislature that passed many earmarks and bills benefitting special interests. The more of these that were passed, the more corruption he argued. So he did not object to laws per se. He was not opining on the relationship between the number of laws and a corrupt government if the laws are for general benefit and not for special interests. Out of context, it might appear that Tacitus was supporting the small government, conservative philosophy. In context, he is arguing against earmarks and special interest legislation and supports what we call “good government” which has been bipartisan in America with parts of each party agreeing with Tacitus and other parts of each party trying to pass earmarks and special interest legislation.

A century afterwards, the biggest change was that the price of the Senate seat had gone up and the Political Action Committees had joined the Party Treasuries as the recipients of the money In the early 21st century almost all the Senators were multi-millionaires.

As a candidate for the Republican Presidential Nomination, Trump was very forthright about the fact that when he was a business tycoon, he gave money to many politicians not for any ideological reasons but he considered the money an investment which paid off handsomely. Almost all large campaign donors believe that they are making an investment and most have continued to be satisfied with the results so they continue to donate. See {583282} as an example of Trump's candid view.

Brat, a college professor, had never run for any political office before. His opponent, Eric Cantor, outspent him by a ratio of nearly 25 to 1. Cantor spent more on steak dinners than Brat spent in total for his whole campaign.

conservative justices in the majority McCain held this view despite the fact that most other politicians applauded the decision since the large, wealthy corporations tended to support Republicans.

The Supreme court ruled that monetary campaign contributions were a form of political speech and as such could not be limited. The result was that the richest people and the largest corporations could pay any politician any amount of money if the called it a campaign contribution. Under the Congressional rules at the time there were ways that the so called campaign contributions could be used for the legislator’s personal and family benefit and when members of Congress retired there were ways that they could take their “unspent” campaign funds with them for personal use. The resultant system was what Senator McCain called “bribery”, which before the Supreme Court rendered this decision was a felony. That which had been unethical and criminal became legal.

While this is a common complaint in the American political dialogue at the beginning of the 21st century, it is interesting that this was the conclusion of a foreign political scholar studying that period—one who was generally a great admirer of America.

Members of Congress and Presidential candidates have to spend much of their time raising money. The Secretary of State, by tradition, is more impartial than the rest of the President’s cabinet and does generally solicit money for campaigns.

In the letter, he was refusing a donation of five hundred guineas for his efforts in Parliament on behalf of the persecuted Roman Catholics of Ireland. See related quotes.