I've been reaching out to voters across the political spectrum from the very beginning.
The greatest level of hostility and venom, really, is between parties closest to each other on the political spectrum.
We all share some commonalities with the states we come from and where we come from on the political spectrum. There's a lot of work to be done to make sure we continue to have strong advocacy for these values that we find in the heartland, in red and rural states.
We Americans love to cite the 'political spectrum' as the best way to classify ideologies. The metaphor is incorrect: it implies symmetry.
I think, from the broad political spectrum, not just the Freedom Caucus, I think there is a need for internal reform that is how we bring bills up, getting back to regular order, how we offer amendments or don't offer amendments.
As a matter of fact, I didn't make a political speech outside of my state for 20 years.
There is no reason for the government to limit political speech.
You can't trust politicians. It doesn't matter who makes a political speech. It's all lies - and it applies to any rock star who wants to make a political speech as well.
The federal government has no business spending your hard-earned money on a project to monitor political speech on Twitter.
Censorship is un-American, and it's egregious that any journalist would advocate for others to be banned for political speech.
Political speech is indispensable to decision-making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.
If you value the democratic process, you have to value the protection of political speech.
The solution to voters potentially being misled by a judicial candidate's political speech is more speech - not government censorship.
The FTC doesn't regulate political speech.
When politicians seek to restrict political speech, it is invariably to protect their own incumbency and avoid having to defend their policies in the marketplace of ideas.
Unfortunately, the media, which are not at all reluctant to act in their own self-interest, have succeeded in equating reform in the public mind with further restrictions on just about everyone else's freedom of political speech.
If candidates spend money on ads and other political speech and their opponents are rewarded with government handouts to attack them, that chills speech and is unconstitutional. Non-participating candidates certainly don't volunteer to allow their opponents to receive taxpayer subsidies to bash them.
The DISCLOSE Act is a testament to the wisdom of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. The First Amendment sought to place political speech beyond the government's control, and we can be glad that it did.
My choosing Islam was not a political statement; it was a spiritual statement.
Whenever there is money, power, and titles involved, players are going to be corrupt. That might be a political statement, but that's what it is for the athletes, too.
