Quote

In general, I found that the more that debates can be about facts and data, the more likely government is to make sound decisions that benefit innovators and the American people.

I think we have to look at the whole way campaigns are financed. The No. 1 problem is PAC and special-interest 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.

We need real campaign finance reform to loosen the grip of special interests on politics.

What passes for real debate in Washington often seems more like an echo chamber, with politicians talking at politicians.

I have a record of wanting to make sure that campaigns are open and financing is fair, but it can't just be one sided.

I think it's one of the challenges of modern politics, which is, how do you communicate who the candidate is, and what they really believe, in the short time period you have? And for me, the best opportunity was the debates, and I think I was in real trouble before the debates, and I think the debates helped me a lot.

I certainly want campaign finance reform. I just wish this would do it in a way that would stand up to a constitutional challenge.

Presidential primary debates are an important part of our political process. But the media has wrested complete control from the parties and candidates over everything, including the number, the format, the qualifications, and the moderators. And they've become a circus.

The world of TV debates is antiquated. What looked smart and modern in 1960, with Kennedy versus Nixon, looks quaint and over-rehearsed between Obama and Romney. We need a new format; even if we have the same moderators and candidates, there needs to be a more nuanced way for audiences to connect with and shape presidential debates.