Ted Cruz

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

Instead of suppressing free speech, let us look to State models for guidance.

No individual or group in this country should have to face harassment or intimidation or incur crippling expenses defending themselves against their own Government simply because that Government does not like the message they are…

The purpose of the DISCLOSE Act is to get around all of that.

New regulations will not make our system better. Getting rid of the regulations we have will.

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.

We should not be trying to think of ways to keep people from participating in the political process. We should be encouraging more of it.

If we really want disclosure, we should be advancing proposals that will redirect resources to the candidates and the parties.

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.

Absolutely no, in no circumstances.

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.

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.

I think that really reveals the issue here, that the votes of Members of Congress are public because we are supposed to be public servants.

The targets are anyone who criticizes Democrats.

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 the IRS targeting scandal has taught us anything, it should be that giving Federal bureaucrats control over the political activity of American citizens is a recipe for disaster.

But tampering with our First Amendment rights is a dangerous business, and that is what this legislation before us aims to do.

I opposed that legislation, along with most of my Republican colleagues, because we feared it would make our system worse, not better.

Campaign finance reform is all about lower the limits, lower the limits, restrict the speech, restrict the speech.

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 First Amendment does not allow us to silence those who oppose us.

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

Campaign finance reform restrictions are always pitched as, 'Let us prevent corruption, let us hold politicians accountable.' And they do exactly the opposite.

We have nothing to fear from a free marketplace of ideas.

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.