The Court showed a remarkable ignorance of how campaign money can affect legislative decisions.

The idea that these appearances have no effect on the confidence that the electorate has in us and in our democracy is naive, to put it mildly.

It creates new rights for Wall Street at the expense of the people on Main Street.

They want a Government 'of the people, by the people and for the people,' as Abraham Lincoln famously put it in the Gettysburg Address.

What is perhaps most disturbing is that the Court made these pronouncements without allowing any opportunity at all for a factual record to be developed.

I am just concerned that this case is going to open the floodgates for corporate spending.

I think they are going to be entirely circumspect about that sort of activity.

this is not consistent with the general sensitivity of the Court to the views of the American people.

Why shouldn't they be able to band together as a corporation, as a sole proprietorship, as a partnership, any other format to do that?

Teddy Roosevelt proposed the first campaign finance reforms, limiting the role of corporations in the political process.

The Citizens United decision was a tragic mistake.

When the Citizens United decision was handed down, I said that it was the most partisan decision since Bush v. Gore.

Why in the world couldn't they--if they adopted the corporate model of doing business, why couldn't they advocate for or against candidates who supported or failed to support their agenda of dealing with the tragedy of homelessness?

The reason the judge has an obligation to recuse is because of how much money the corporation is spending in the election.

I think the rights of Vermonters and all Americans to speak to each other and to be heard should not be undercut by corporate spending.

I absolutely believe that this is not the kind of open-and-shut question people say.

But why would Congress have the authority to suppress the free speech rights of one corporation when another corporation has a complete right to express their views to advocate for and against a candidate in an election?

I am glad to see in the budget request that you put us on track to fully fund the LWCF by 2014.

It is going to destroy agriculture in some part of this country--I mean, we are going to see our apple orchards disappear.

I would urge accelerating whatever you are doing because it is basically an epidemic.

the Senate has finally taken action on the nomination of Judge William Conley to be a U.S. district court judge in the Western District of Wisconsin. Judge Conley was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee without objection last year…

Trying to get people to sign away their rights for a mere $5,000 when the damage that they might have would far exceed that is clearly the wrong thing to do.

Recognizing the importance of supportive housing to prevent homelessness and the fact that it is at least half as expensive to preserve existing units as to create new ones, would HUD consider allowing in the next NOFA the possibility of…

The American taxpayer deserves more, deserves better.

Isn't it safe to say that there are many, many, many cases where a person has given a great deal of information about a crime they have committed after they have been given the Miranda warning?