Which of the following best describes your viewpoint regarding campaign financing for US federal elections?

There should be limits on how much people/orgs can independently spend (72%) – "I don't feel that our President and Congressmen/women are representatives of the people that elected them, but rather the special interests who fund their campaigns."

• "That's another thing the courts got wrong. The only donors to any political campaign should be people; humans; living adults. People have the Constitutional Rights, corporations are not people and need to be controlled to protect their reason for existence. The Super PAC's, through their unlimited funds, have too much influence on swaying the voice of the people in the ears of the politician by effectively "gifting" to the politician, ads which support them or attack their opponent, which is the same as donating to them."

"This way, politicians would be forced to work on interests of their constituents rather than the interests of the businesses. Sure, a business may be owned by a constituent, but elected officials are representatives for the people and their interests, and businesses are not people."

• "Today public offices are for sale. The checks are written to networks for advertising and the candidate that throws the most mud in the process wins. Networks frequently show ads for candidates back to back, theoretically nullifying each other, irritating viewers, and making the networks more money. Winning candidates are expected to pay back donors with preferential treatment such as jobs and influence pedaling. It won't be easy but the current system does not work and the big winners are the networks and big money. The country is for sale and heading toward another revolution."

"By allowing people and corporations with immense spending power to donate freely, this reduces the voice of the American people who make up the majority of this country. Average citizens cannot compete with billionaires, much less businesses leaving the scale inherently tipped towards big money."

• "We should ensure money does not create advantages or determine the outcomes of elections. If anyone wants to talk, talk. But elections should not be bought and, what's more, I do not think money should be in the umbrella of "free speech". It gives an unfair advantage to the rich. It's amoral. And really just a garbage way to run a country."

"The current system gives wealthy individuals and companies a greater voice in politics simply because they have more money. This corrupts the political process in so many ways, not least of which is politicians spending more time courting potential donors than making their case to the average American."

People/orgs should be able to independently spend as much as they want (17%) – "The sad thing is that those who want to buy influence to a potential or current political leader will get the money to the candidate one way or the other. All those laws to set limits have only contributed to the money flow becoming more obscure. I favor as much transparency as possible."

• "I agree with the idea that money=speech and think people and organizations should be able to support the campaigns they want at whatever level they want. When we put restrictions on it, people start to get shady. We know that people are exceeding the limit already through illegal avenues and with the super PACs, it's as close to an actual campaign donation as people can get and there's no limit on those. Don't get me wrong, I FULLY support restrictions on how campaign funds are allowed to be used once received, but don't think donations should be capped."

Unsure/other (11%) – "People who are citizens should be able to spend what they want. Organizations are not people and should not should not be able to spend what they want to influence politics. If they can't vote they shouldn't be able to donate."