A Quote by Juan Williams

As the 2012 elections approach the finish line, the chatter among columnists and political reporters is about upcoming books that take readers inside the campaigns, cutting-edge efforts to micro-target voters on Internet social applications, the enormous money flowing through super-PACs, and extreme political polarization.
With super PACs, we've seen voter turnout go up; interest in elections rise; and the number of competitive races increase. The campaigns of 2010 and 2012 have been more issue-oriented than their predecessors, not less.
There's been an unfortunate history of efforts to make sure Florida's votes don't count. Given that history, it's clear why people here would be especially concerned about efforts undertaken by Super PACs and the corporations that fund them to dictate the outcome of elections.
I recognize that individuals and organizations with tremendous financial clout and open access to the political system in the post-Citizens United era, are going to fight tooth and nail against a reinvigorated War on Poverty. But I also think that the elections of 2012 showed the limits of big money in politics, and the willingness of a majority of voters to really think these issues through for themselves.
The data shows pretty clearly that how voters watch video programming is dramatically changing and reinforces the need for political campaigns to better match their communications outreach efforts to the voters’ changing media habits.
The 2012 presidential campaign's turn away from the classic, straight-up, American election - where the candidate who gets the most votes nationwide wins - is another sad reminder of the extreme political polarization distorting today's politics. No one talks about a 50-state strategy for winning the presidency these days.
The billionaires and their super PACs increasingly control the American political process. This is not democracy. This is not what brave Americans fought and died to defend. This is oligarchy. This is government of the few, by the few and for the few. We must overturn Citizen United and move to public funding of elections.
From the extreme political polarization that is everywhere - there's so much suffering going on - so many people are really thirsty to feel good about something.
For many years, we have had these campaign finance reforms, and they have been failures. Money is more coursing through our system than ever before. Incumbents have used the laws to advantage themselves. And one of the reasons I think they have been failures is we have tried to crush down the money in places like the political parties, and it has squished out into opaque super PACs and sort of hidden channels.
In 2012, I see the potential for people to come together, huge moments of political and social engagement where elections are part of the strategy for change, but not the end goal and not the only thing that matters.
I mean this is a revolution in how campaigns work - more money was spent by super PACs than by either myself or John Faso. So what that means is that if you're a voter in this district you are more likely to have heard from a super PAC than from me or my opponent.
Experience has shown us that attempts to control the Internet will invariably fail. We should be instructed by the failed efforts of China to regulate political content, the efforts of America to regulate Internet gambling, or the efforts of Australia to regulate certain speech. By its very nature, the Internet will always resist such controls.
I would love to say that the world is changing in the movie industry for people of color, women, the LGBTQ community and other minorities since I began my career, and that we are evolving as a species, but I think that given this social and political climate, I'm at a loss. It's like running a marathon and thinking you're halfway done and you can see the finish line - but the finish line is actually the first checkpoint.
Politics has certainly changed a lot in an era of micro-targeting, Super PACs, and Twitter.
What we have are - some of the big political donors behind the super PACs are big on promoting more of these trade agreements which cost us jobs - another reason that we need to end political action committees and have only individual donations with their donations being disclosed completely with names and addresses and other information.
didn't come from a particularly political family. My parents were regular voters. My parents didn't make enough money to contribute to campaigns, and they didn't really knock on doors for candidates when I was growing up.
There are a lot of people who say we need to cut the amount of money that's spent in politics. I'm not sure that I agree. But I am sure that if you were talking about cutting the amount of money spent in politics, the media would have a strong interest in opposing you, because they make an enormous amount of money from political advertisements.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!