Poll: Rein in the leaders
Monday, Oct 19, 2009 - Posted by Rich Miller
* We have more poll results today from the Paul Simon Institute. Let’s take a look at a few responses to questions about the power of legislative leaders…
We’d like to know what you think about some public policy questions that are being talked about in Illinois…
* A proposal to limit the amount of campaign money that party leaders can redistribute to other candidates. Would you say you:
Strongly favor 31.5%
Favor 33.9%
Oppose 18.6%
Strongly oppose 5.3%
No opinion/Don’t know 10.8%
[Totals: 65.4% Favor/Strong Favor; 23.9% Oppose/Strong Oppose]
* A proposal to limit “in-kind” contributions to state legislative campaigns? In-kind contributions are goods or services, such as office space, printing, or buying advertising on behalf of a candidate. Currently there are limits on how much cash people can contribute, but not on in-kind contributions. Would you say you:
Strongly favor 32.1%
Favor 39.5%
Oppose 14.5%
Strongly oppose 5.0%
No opinion/Don’t know 8.9%
[Totals: 71.6% Favor/Strongly Favor; 19.5% Oppose/Strong Oppose]
* A proposal to limit how long legislators could serve in leadership positions—such as Speaker of the House or President of the Senate—before they stepped down to let other legislators lead. Would you say you:
Strongly favor 38.0%
Favor 39.6%
Oppose 10.8%
Strongly oppose 3.9%
No opinion/Don’t know 7.8%
[Totals: 77.6% Favor/Strongly Favor; 14.7% Oppose/Strong Oppose]
And a near majority supports public funding of campaigns…
* A proposal to eliminate contributions to state legislative campaigns by providing public funding for all candidates who qualify for it. Would you say you:
Strongly favor 15.6%
Favor 33.8%
Oppose 27.9%
Strongly oppose 10.6%
No opinion/Don’t know 12.1%
[Totals: 49.4% Favor/Strongly Favor; 38.5% Oppose/Strong Oppose]
* Methodology…
Interviews were conducted between September 9, 2009, and October 8, 2009, by the Survey Research Center at the University of North Texas. Respondents were chosen at random, and each interview lasted approximately 15 minutes. Results from the entire sample have a statistical margin for error of ± 3.4 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that if we were to conduct the survey 100 times, in 95 of those instances the results would vary by no more than plus or minus 3.4 points from the results obtained here. The margin for error will be larger for demographic, geographic, and response subgroups.
The Paul Simon Public Policy Institute created, directed and financed this telephone survey of 800 registered voters across the state of Illinois.
Discuss.
…Adding… Related…
* Top lawmakers put big money into statehouse races - Campaign finance bill maintains unlimited transfers from leaders’ warchests
- steve schnorf - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 12:03 pm:
Does not acting in accordance with your stated beliefs constitute lying about your beliefs, or is there just too much disconnect for most people to realize the hypocrisy of their actions?
- The Doc - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 12:12 pm:
Re: public financing of campaigns, I’m not sure most folks truly understand how this works, especially vis-a-vis the methods currently employed to fund campaigns. Considering the furor over bailouts and such, the fact that any proposal containing the adjacent words “public” and “funding” received a plurality is quite telling.
- Speaking at Will - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 12:32 pm:
The people want these things. However, since there isn’t any money being denied to someone (example: map grants) will anyone show up to press for the reforms?
- Ghost - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 12:35 pm:
It would be interesting to have polled for term limits of all elected officials along side the leadership questions.
- He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 12:54 pm:
This is all great but nothing will come of it. And Ghost does have a good comment that would have been an interesting Polling question.
- CircularFiringSquad - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 1:25 pm:
Anybody else wonder why:
1. it took a month to make the calls
2.it took 2 weeks to add up the #s
3. we needed a TX school to make the calls
4. they don’t mention:
a. limits don’t apply to current leaders
b. special interests will run wild(er)
Other than those items it looks like a jim dandy effort. Wonder what the respondents would
- CircularFiringSquad - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 1:25 pm:
Anybody else wonder why:
1. it took a month to make the calls
2.it took 2 weeks to add up the #s
3. we needed a TX school to make the calls
4. they don’t mention:
a. limits don’t apply to current leaders
b. special interests will run wild(er)
Other than those items it looks like a jim dandy effort. Wonder what the respondents would
- CircularFiringSquad - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 1:28 pm:
sorry for the double post….I did want to finish by asking what respondents might have said it we exchanged professors for legislators
- Independent - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 1:49 pm:
I think we need to go to public finacncing of all elections, we must get money out of politics.
- Downstate - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 2:17 pm:
The high cost of elections is something we want to curtail - right?
Then why not look at it like cigarettes?
Let’s tax political campaigns at the same rate we tax individuals. (Same goes for Pacs, etc.)
The more you spend (or raise) in support of a candidate, the higher the campaign is taxed (up to a 40% rate). Once a candidate hits the $150,000 mark, this provides a strong disincentive for the candidate or contributors to raise more money.
If you want to encourage something - offer a tax break. If you want to discourage it - tax it!
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 2:19 pm:
Yeah, great, then they’ll just have to raise even more money from special interests.
- Downstate - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 2:48 pm:
But Rich, wouldn’t we have the ability to “tinker” with the rate so that we can actually make the top rate at 99% once they hit $1,000,000 or whatever top dollar we set.
The tax rate applies to any organization that runs a political ad advocating on behalf (or against) a “named” candidate. This would suddenly make interest groups think twice about how they spend their political dollars, if it opens them up to another tax.
And of course………we spend the tax money on EDUCATION!
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 2:50 pm:
As long as campaigns cost $x to run, that’s what they’ll spend.
- wordslinger - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 3:10 pm:
I find it very hard to believe that there’s a near majority in favor of public financing of political campaigns.
I can only base that on a gut instinct derived from a lifetime of experience. That, plus the lack of support for the presidential checkoff. Remember, that was going to help us reclaim the system from the bad old ‘72 Nixon days. Can you imagine what he would think about Obama’s $700 million?
- CircularFiringSquad - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 3:23 pm:
We assume Round III will tell how Illinoisan ranked the issues confronting…so far we have horse race numbers — some a month + old and “are you against Satan”
- Downstate - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 3:33 pm:
Rich,
We tax our casino’s up to 70%. If politicians are (all) taxed to a rate that makes it unpalatable to raise any more money - they’ll budget their spending accordingly.
Imagine politicians that have to run their campaigns with a real eye toward careful spending? Sounds like the kind of responsible representatives that I’d prefer in Springfield.
Our current system rewards that candidate who can raise and spend the most money. So why are we suprised when the winning candidates aren’t necesarily careful with state spending. After all, our system typically rewards the candidate that is the most responsible in spending campaign dollars.
- Downstate - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 3:34 pm:
typo alert*******
My last post (last sentence) should have said:
“…our system typically rewards the candidate that is LEAST responsible in spending campaign dollars.”
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 3:35 pm:
This argument is so silly. How about realizing that what you’ll likely do is force them to raise more money?
Also, there’s that thing called the 1st Amendment. I doubt you could tax campaign contributions at 99 percent.
- Captain Flume - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 3:36 pm:
==Yeah, great, then they’ll just have to raise even more money from special interests.==
The term “special interests” has a negative connotation, maybe “stakeholders” would be better. Of course, I guess that depends on whether you are buying or selling.
- bwana - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 7:28 pm:
Term limits on leadership solves a lot of issues folks!
- wordslinger - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 8:12 pm:
–Term limits on leadership solves a lot of issues folks!–
Such as?
I’m not sure Ike would have agreed with you when he had LBJ and Rayburn. Seemed like good times then.
Vandenberg, Dirksen, Ford and Michel were in the minority leadership for a long time, but giants on the great issues of the day (Midwestern boys, all).
You may be right, but tell me how.
Or do you think we’re all victims all of the time?
- Ghost - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 8:30 pm:
I wonder how many people demand term limits in other aspects of your life.
Instead of an experienced cardiac surgeon, demand a fresh doctor with no or little experience behind the blade.
Same for your financial advisor, Plumber, electrician.
I am not sure I follow the concpet that inexperience is a positive, and we want to limit experience.
We could let people have a driver licenses for two terms, then they have to give up the car. Imagine the lives and green house admissions we could save.
Term limits for drivers!
- Suzanne - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 8:55 pm:
I’m with Ghost; term limits ensure that a lot of valuable experience and institutional knowledge gets chucked for idealistic inexperience. Idealistic inexperience has its charms and utility but it’s not something I want to institutionalize. I’d rather limit leader dough and by doing so out the acquiescing votes it pays for.
- Obamas Puppy - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 10:18 pm:
Leader term limits has no chance unless MJM exempts his “century of phenominal leadership” from the bill.
- ZC - Monday, Oct 19, 09 @ 10:43 pm:
These findings are no surprise. I would expect to see this even without the current voter discontent in Springfield.
Voters like term limits, voters like contribution limits. The best theory I’ve heard proposed about this, is that what a lot of voters really want (sorry, voters, but I think it’s true) is some perfect set of rules that would allow for there to be honest government in Springfield _without the voters having to pay any attention to it_. They’d like a set of rules that would make the whole process work like ethical clockwork, a rigid set of rules that would be morally self-enforcing. They like term limits because they think that politics morally saps even the best legislators over time, and so it somehow self-refreshes the system.
The truth is that a lot of voters are bored by state politics and would just as soon ignore it, except for the fear that they are getting taken advantage of. So, any rules that seem to step in and do the monitoring job for them, they’re in favor of.
But it’s a fantasy. Mere rules cannot self-enforce a more ethical Springfield; without voter attention, they will only breed more loopholes and more shenanigans about them.
- Quinn T.Sential - Tuesday, Oct 20, 09 @ 12:35 am:
How about if they just tax the highest generating campaign funds; and turn around and give the proceeds to their competitors like the legislature did by taking money from the four Chicago area riverboats, and giving it to the race tracks.
The issue was litigated all the way through the IL Supreme Court; and upheld, and then also considered, but then denied a hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court.
They could tax the Democrats and Republicans and give the money to the Green Party under the same theory that allowed the additional gaming tax.