There's no doubt that there's a public backlash against the way campaign money is raised, but I don't think the only alternative is to elect people with money.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
As dismayed as Americans are with the influence of the special interests that finance election campaigns, they've been reluctant to embrace the alternative: taxpayer-financed elections.
Well I think money has been going into political campaigns for a very long time.
Much of what candidates have to do is raise money and appeal to constituencies or interest groups that can provide that money.
The reality is that asking the public to fund political campaigns accomplishes nothing. Candidates continue to seek interest-group support through other channels, both financial and in-kind, and corruption problems abound.
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.
All elections revolve around and are often resolved by who raises the most money. That's unfair. I'd like to see that process changed, but it seems once you win and get to Congress, that doesn't happen.
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.
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.
I think we have to look at the whole way campaigns are financed. The No. 1 problem is PAC and special-interest money.
I don't think politicians should be allowed to take money for their campaigns from outside interests.
No opposing quotes found.