I don't think candidates should take contributions from people if they don't have the most basic information about who they are.

If he was delivering for all his clients, I would be a lot more worried. Nobody wins all the time, and if you do win all the time you're doing something bad.

It's really a problem of appearances in most cases. In 99 percent of the cases, it's something that looks bad, but you don't frequently have legislators who are necessarily swayed by this. But it is a concern. It can undermine public confidence. What people see they tend to believe, whether or not at its core it really is as nefarious as all that.

The vast majority of judges are extraordinarily honorable people, but when you've got big dollars flying around and a lot of special interests circling like hornets over judicial elections, it creates an impression that ultimately is damaging to the judiciary.

It seems absolutely ridiculous to me that a campaign has trouble identifying who their big givers are. Ten-thousand-dollar contributions don't go unnoticed.

It's kind of like a low-grade fever. It's not like people are running around saying, 'Oh, my goodness, the former governor is on trial.' We all know that. We've been living with this scandal for seven years now.

The system creates the perception that money is influencing justice.

We want to move from a culture of corruption to reform. It's time to get serious and give the public the government they deserve.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to say this looks fishy.

To us it's critically important that we send a message that the disclosure law cannot be evaded. Twenty five thousand dollars is still a significant fine for the state board of elections.