It is not our intention to ban movies or ban books or ban the NAACP from speaking.

A simpler, more reasoned approach would be for us to adopt the Virginia plan: remove the limits, allow candidates to accept and report all contributions, and let the citizens decide what is proper or not.

The only people who can win elections then are incumbent politicians, because incumbent politicians have armies of lobbyists and entrenched interests that raise the money and fund them.

The Supreme Court recognized the First Amendment does not allow this Congress to choose who gets to speak.

This effort must be seen in the context of their larger goal to amend the First Amendment to permit even more regulation of political speech.

History tells us otherwise. The sad fact is this kind of Government-led intimidation is part of a much broader effort that has been underway within the Obama administration for years.

If we want our election officials to serve military and overseas voters, we should allow them to do it.

If you choose to run for public office, there are 300 million Americans who have a right to criticize you all day long and twice on Sundays.

the last people we want deciding, you know, who needs to speak more or who needs to speak less in a campaign is the Government itself.

Imposing speech regulations based on the whims of whatever party happens to be in the majority in Congress at a given time is not a reasonable exercise.

Absolutely no, in no circumstances.

the precise idea of the First Amendment is to prevent Congress from deciding what is reasonable.