"Come on, fifteen billionaires [who fund the GOP's continued existence], come out from behind the shadows. Come out into the open, so David at least has a chance to launch that single slingshot."
"What the Supreme Court did is a combination of arrogance, naïveté and stupidity the likes of which I have never seen," he pronounced from the dais. "It’s pretty obvious by the sarcasm from people like (Justice Antonin) Scalia and the absolute naïveté of people I voted for to be members of the Supreme Court, like (Chief Justice John) Roberts and (Justice Samuel) ['not true'] Alito and others, that they had no idea what political campaigns are about. They were incredibly naïve… Since when is a corporation a person?"
"I've got to wait until we think that we can pass legislation and I'm not sure right now, frankly, that we could get it passed," he said. "I think there is probably a majority of Republicans right now that would vote against it because Republicans are profiting by it and there'll be a lot of Democrats who don't want to take it up."
"I promise you there will be huge scandals because there's too much money washing around, too much of it we don't know who contributed it and there's too much corruption associated with that kind of money."
"These instances of retaliation sufficiently demonstrate why this Court should invalidate mandatory disclosure and reporting requirements... I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in "core political speech, the 'primary object of First Amendment protection.'"
"[Common Cause] asserted that Justice Thomas should have withdrawn from deciding last year’s landmark Citizens United case on campaign finance because of both Mrs. Thomas’s founding of another conservative political group in 2009 and Justice Thomas’s own appearance at a private political retreat organized by Charles Koch, a prominent conservative financier." (New York Times, "Thomas Cites Failure to Disclose Wife's Job" 01/24/11)
If the motive for a political donation is profit-driven, the "harassment" defense is invalid. The American people need to know.
"The problem with our disclosure laws is political, not constitutional. Congress has not seen fit to fix the holes in the campaign finance laws, and the Federal Election Commission’s rules allowed for much money to be left undisclosed. It got even worse recently when three Republican commissioners on the FEC, who have been blocking whatever campaign finance laws they could, interpreted the rules to require even less disclosure." (Slate, "Is Campaign Disclosure Heading Back to the Supreme Court" 05/16/12)
"It is important to note here that Freedom of the Press is a constitutional right. There is a reason this is First Amendment stuff! Our founders knew that a free press would be the enemy of those who seek the kind of power and influence that are not in our nation's best interest." (From "Our Path to Absurdity," 06/06/11)
UPDATED: 6/18/12 - Fresh from their side's victory in Wisconsin... Senate Minority Leader, Mitch "McConnell (R-KY) defends political contributions as free speech." (Washington Post)
UPDATED: 6/20/12 - Senate Minority Leader McConnell continues to call on Republicans to protect secret money here: "Big Political Donors Shy Away from Public Scrutiny." (NPR) In this article, there is this quote by Norm Ornstein (who recently wrote the book mentioned here):
"If you're judging candidates and making your vote choices based on what you hear, you have got to be able to know who is saying the things that you hear."UPDATED: 07/17/12 - "Harry Reid Worries About '17 Angry Old White Men' Buying The Nation." (NPR)