Mitch McConnell

I served in a body with a bunch of class Presidents. There all ambitious.

I think that what the voters were saying yesterday was a couple of things. Number one, they are obviously not satisfied with the direction of the administration.

I think it was a very cordial conversation I appreciated the call.

It's like even a red flag in front a bull to say, 'If you guys don't do what I want, I'm going to do in on my own.'

I believe and others believe that ISIS can hit us here at home and that really trumps all of the considerations and I'm anxious here that the president hasn't mind and I think he's very likely to get support.

Given the rise in military suicide, what do we know about how servicemembers and their families are affected by suicides occurring within the military community?

It would give the Government complete control--complete control--over the political speech of its citizens.

This is really great if you are a corporation that owns a newspaper.

Americans from all walks of life understand how extraordinarily special the First Amendment is.

When it comes to free speech, we should not substitute the incumbent-protection desires of politicians for the protection the Constitution guarantees to all Americans.

Freedom of the press has never been understood to give the media special constitutional rights denied to others.

It is outrageous to say that limiting speech is necessary for democracy.

It is deeply, profoundly, obviously undemocratic to limit speech about who to elect to public office.

The recourse to being criticized is not to shut up your fellow citizens.

It would empower incumbent politicians in Congress and in the States to write the rules on who gets to speak and who does not.

What precedent would this amendment create?

Our constitutional rights do not depend on whether unelected judges believe they advance democracy as they conceive it.

Free speech creates a marketplace of ideas in which citizens can learn, debate, and persuade fellow citizens on the issues of the day.

Today freedom of speech is threatened as it has not been in many decades.

I respectfully submit that they would be wrong now to support the latest proposal to weaken the First Amendment.

Attempts to weaken the First Amendment--such as the proposal before this Committee--should, therefore, pass the highest scrutiny.

The proposed constitutional amendment would enable Government to limit funds contributed to candidates and funds spent by or in support of candidates.

We Republicans have put together a responsible and constitutional campaign reform agenda. It would restrict the power of special interest PACs, stop the flow of all soft money, keep wealthy individuals from buying public office.

In our society, spending is speech.

The proposed amendment has it exactly backward.