Campaign Funding Quotes

Obama's primary constituency was financial institutions. They were the core of the funding for his campaign. They expect to be paid back. And they were. They were paid back by coming out richer and more powerful than they were before the crisis that they created.

I've made it clear that I'm not taking special interest PAC money or accepting donations from lobbyists - ever. I want to represent the interests of the citizens.

There can only be democracy when money is not allowed to be spent in Politics.

You can't take money from the taxpayers out of the treasury to give it to pay off your political donors. That's corruption to do that.

Mitt Romney had a fundraiser in Israel with a bunch of diamond merchants, we don't know the names of them.

After the 1970s, when President Nixon's illegal campaign cash was used as a secret slush fund to pay for the Watergate burglary and cover-up, Americans have demanded to know where the money fueling our elections is coming from.

Money has always been in politics. And I'm not sure you'd want money to be completely out of politics.

Unless public officials are wealthy and fund their own campaigns, the only place they can turn to is lobbyists and institutions like labor unions and corporations.

I don't take PAC money. I don't take special interest money.

Donald Trump disproved the notion that there is a direct dollar-for-dollar correlation between how much money you had in your traditional war chest and what your election outcome was going to be.

To limit money is to limit political power.

Politics is a damn expensive business. I had one hell of a time trying to raise money as a candidate. I had to put a second mortgage on our house to get that campaign started, and I ended up spending over $300,000 to get elected. I believe that public financing of federal election campaigns is the only thing that will insure good candidates and save the two-party system. It is the most degrading thing in the world to go out with your hat in your hand and beg for money, but that's what you have to do if you haven't got your own resources.

There was an embarrassing moment at a recent Democratic fundraiser. When John Kerry was handed a $10 million dollar check, he said, 'I do.'

Iowa is especially critical for underdog and cash-strapped campaigns, because the caucus system relies on grassroots organizing, enabling candidates with time for retail politicking to beat better-funded rivals. So underdogs usually seize on the state.

If we must have campaign contributions, this is the way to raise them. If you would start this method now, you would begin a tremendous reform.

I don't have more money. I won't have more money than any of the candidates, even the Republican candidates. We know that already. But we are building this campaign team like I would build a business. And that is, we are building it so far with no debt.

Romney raised $10 million. That’s a dollar for every position he’s had on healthcare.

Hillary Clinton is doing a thank-you for the money, largely because she wants them to continue giving it to her. Make no mistake about that. And that is almost the difference in the two campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, in a nutshell. It's a stark contrast.

The [Democratic] party is a bank. It collects money and gives it to TV stations.

When the NRA is funding your campaign and giving you, you know, millions of dollars, are you likely to pass gun legislation or support it? No, and I think that's the reason why we see members of Congress refusing to do anything.

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

No doubt the political left will say that foreign donations to the Obama campaign are a 'phantom' problem. However, there is physical evidence.

I have been deeply touched by the small contributions which have been sent to me to transmit to the Democratic campaign fund. They represent more sacrifice perhaps than larger sums of money and are often accompanied by letters which make one realize even more keenly the weight of responsibility on a man who has the confidence of so large a part of a nation such as ours.

Candidates who win while spending less than their opponents still usually have to spend quite a lot. While not a surefire guarantor of victory, a large war chest -even if not the largest-is usually a necessary condition. Money may not guarantee victory, but the lack of it usually guarantees defeat. Without large sums, there is rarely much of a campaign, as poorly funded 'minor' candidates have repeatedly discovered.

I think in the real world that's probably correct. That would give federal matching funds. It would mean no more ballot access woes.