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.'
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Money is speech. It's incongruous to say a multimillionaire can spend as much on his own campaign as he wants, but you can only give $2,300. His free speech rights are different from yours, thus violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. It's absurd.
A million dollars in the presidential election is a spit in the ocean. It's not a lot of money.
I contribute to public candidate campaigns, and there's a federal limit on how much you can contribute to each individual candidate. I obey the law in that regard, and I feel like I'm doing it properly.
The truth is, the 'Fortune' 500 prefer lobbying to campaigning.
I think it is wrong to spend $4 or $5 million in a campaign.
It doesn't matter who you vote for. It's still the same billionaires that run the world.
Elections are a competition with only one winner. Giving more money to the opponent every time one speaks on behalf of a favored candidate discourages the speech that triggers the matching funds.
It's important not to limit the amount of their own money that candidates can spend, but to give other people access to enough money to run competitive races.
The McCain-Feingold limit on how much you give a candidate didn't really work because people found ways to get around it.
I do not believe wealthy candidates should spend vast resources in their own campaigns.
No opposing quotes found.