Campaign Expenditures Quotes

I've never seen my filings. I've instructed my campaign to review my filings and check and see if any don't comply with state election laws, and return them.

My view on candidates on money is unless it's proven that the donor stole the money, the campaign keeps the money.

I don't think anyone's pushing for spending limits in the campaign.

It is one thing to talk about fundraising and another to do it as a candidate, and I have learned so much about how much money it costs to run a campaign and what it means to raise money.

If the friends of the candidate choose to go to expense for committees and canvassing [campaigning] there are no means of preventing them; but such expenses out of the candidate’s own pocket, or any expenses whatever beyond the deposit of £50 (or £100), should be illegal and punishable.

We are told there is not enough money for education, but somehow there is enough money for people to raise billions of dollars to defeat somebody in an election? Oh! Okay! Does that make sense?

Campaigns are so much more expensive than people think they are. Just to keep the lights on is several thousand dollars a month.

It is now clear that giving to a candidate’s PAC is equivalent to giving to his campaign; the leaders of the PAC are, for all practical purposes, are the campaign’s bag men.

Spending for congressional campaigns is getting to be like the arms race.

You have a burden going into any campaign when you're raising money to fund that effort because there's always a desire to spend more money than you have.

A million dollars in the presidential election is a spit in the ocean. It's not a lot of money.

Even though Mr. Trump can give his campaign as much of his own money as he wants to, he can't ask other people to front the money for him and promise to pay them back later without reporting the arrangement in a timely fashion to the Federal Election Commission.

Pollsters get paid by the poll, ad makers by the ad, phone-calling firms by the call, direct-mailers by the piece. They all have an incentive to promote their services, whether or not doing so helps the campaign win—and they face few consequences if it doesn’t.

One doesn't need money to run for Parliament, but it is undoubtedly expensive.

There probably could be some mileage in running a comparative study about how best to finance electoral campaigns around the world.

Unless our democratic philosophy is wrong, there can be no evil in a candidate spending a legally permissible and necessary sum to approach the electorate and enable them to pass an informed judgment upon his qualifications.

They ended up spending a total, their campaign plus the independent, about 1.3 million. I only ended up spending about - not only, but I spent about 2 million. But I had no intention of doing that until I was attacked with a negative ad by an independent group.

The way campaign funds are distributed are all a matter of record.

The Court made an exception, however, in the case of candidates contributing to their own campaigns because of the rather reasonable presumption that a candidate is incapable of corrupting himself.

Federal election laws bar candidates from the 'personal use' of campaign donations - a ban meant to stop candidates from buying things unrelated to their runs for office. If a purchase is a result of campaign activity, the government allows it.

Democracies need political parties and political parties need money.

I don't think I would have to run a campaign that's financed like General Motors.

What distinguishes the campaign finance issue from just about every other one being debated these days is that the two sides do not divide along conventional liberal/ conservative lines.

Not only the candidate should not be required, he should not be permitted, to incur any but a limited and trifling expense for his election.

Since Trump began running for president in summer 2015, he has repeatedly used his hotels and golf courses as venues for his campaign events - and paid himself for the privilege.