Few developments in campaigning have been as vilified and misunderstood as independent expenditure PACs, or, as they are colloquially known, super PACs.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I think we have to look at the whole way campaigns are financed. The No. 1 problem is PAC and special-interest money.
With super PACs, we've seen voter turnout go up; interest in elections rise; and the number of competitive races increase. The campaigns of 2010 and 2012 have been more issue-oriented than their predecessors, not less.
The super PACs have brought an element of fear into the equation. The fact that they can bring this money into the campaign, basically ambush you out of nowhere, and you'll have no way to fight back.
It's time for grassroots citizens to have a president that's focused on them rather than the super PACs.
These candidates are all beholden to these super PACs.
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.
Every major federal campaign-finance-reform effort since 1943 has attempted to treat corporations and unions equally. If a limit applied to corporations, it applied to unions; if unions could form PACs, corporations could too; and so on. DISCLOSE is the first major campaign-finance bill that has not taken this approach.
Pressure for the most part comes from this overarching concern that if I head into the election season without sufficient resources, then any outside group, any individual, any super PAC may choose to come in to my district and overwhelm it and take over the airwaves and control the debate.
Both Obama and Romney are just rolling in PAC money. Plus, they have the super PAC's behind them. They've got multi-millionaires and billionaires just buying 30-second ads. It gives each of them tremendous exposure.
I would do away with super PACs. I think it's a cancer.
No opposing quotes found.