Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

79 percent of Illinoisans say corporations should have the same free speech rights as individuals

Posted in:

Illinois
Polls

* I’m not sure yet whether I buy into Crain’s new online polling results or not, but the publication has a new online poll of Illinoisans which has some interesting results. For example, respondents were asked if corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals…

A whopping 79 percent of those surveyed agreed that businesses “have (the) same free speech rights as individuals.” Forty-one percent said they “strongly” hold that view. A total of 22 percent strongly or somewhat agreed.

* But, as always, there are mixed messages coming from the poll…

Asked if owners of large businesses “should keep (their) political views private,” 64 percent indicated they should. Barely over a third, 35 percent, disagreed with that statement.

* And this overwhelmingly liberal response is somewhat surprising…

65 percent said employers should be required to offer employee benefits such as health care for unmarried domestic partners. Of the total sample, 2 percent said that should apply to same-sex partners only, and 8 percent would offer benefits to opposite-sex partners only.

Just over a quarter, 26 percent, said they oppose requiring corporate health insurance benefits for unmarried partners

* Methodology of the poll of 600 Illinois adults…

The Crain’s/Ipsos Illinois Poll is a representative survey of voting-age Illinois residents conducted over the Internet. Ipsos validates the sample against offline data sources such as telephone surveys to ensure the accuracy of its weighting. The overall survey has an accuracy rate of plus/minus 4.7 percent, with higher margins for geographic subgroups such as Chicago or the suburbs.

I’m still not quite sure how they actually “ensure the accuracy” of their weighting, so please beware these numbers. Also, take note that these respondents are just adults, not likely voters.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 11:09 am

Comments

If corporations shouldn’t have free speech rights, should churches have their right of free exercise of religion revoked too? It’s basically the same concept.

Comment by Question Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 11:10 am
If there are people from crains reading this. I signed up, read 1 article and it told me I had reached my 12 article for the month “limit”. You guys need to fix your system.

Comment by Shore Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 11:11 am
===It’s basically the same concept. ===

Not really. Corporate advertising is regulated by the government. Church advertising isn’t.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 11:12 am
Internet polling is not accurate.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 11:15 am
=== Internet polling is not accurate. ===

I’m not saying the Crain’s poll is accurate or not, but this doesn’t sound like it was an online poll like you might see here on CapFax. It sounds like it was, essentially, done by email where you have more control over who is responding to ensure a representative sample. Yes, one can argue over the merits of polling that way, but it is likely more scientific than an online poll posted to a website.

Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 11:24 am
If this was supposed to be about the supreme court decision it should have asked about campaign spending. I’m not sure those responding to the survey would have connected that speech = money. The distinction for me is like this: I do think chick filet executives have a right to express their feelings but I do not think a corporation, that has vastly more resources, than individuals should be flooding elections with cash.

Comment by Dave V Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 11:26 am
A corporation (business or otherwise) is a collection of people. Where do you draw the line? I can give $5,000. If I band together with 5 friends, we can giver $25,000. Nevermind, I don’t have friends like that. If I did, I wouldn’t be drinking Cutty Sark.

Comment by Question Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 11:39 am
The exact wording and introduction of the question is crucial. From the article, it seems like the poll was asking whether a company (Chick-Fil-A in this instance) should be able to express an opinion without punishment from the government. If that’s the case, the result of the poll should not be terribly surprising.

On the other hand, if the poll question can be read as referring to Citizens United, it is a surprising result. Without seeing the poll, it’s hard to say exactly what was asked. But from the article and the other snippets of questions, I think it’s more likely than not that the question was about companies (or their executives) being able to express an opinion, not about whether a company should be able to use corporate treasury funds to communicate that message.

Comment by the Other Anonymous Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 11:39 am
cue Stephen Colbert.

Comment by amalia Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 11:39 am
Kane County has this referendum on the ballot in Nov:

Should the United States Constitution be amended to limit use of corporate, special interest, and private money in any political activity, including influencing the election of any candidate for public office? YES [ ] NO [ ]

http://www.kanecountyelections.org/Referenda/reftext.aspx?ID=767

Comment by Allen Skillicorn Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 11:41 am
If a corporation is a person, then I’d love to see some of them go to jail when criminal statutes are violated!

Question at 11:39am, I didn’t even know they still make Cutty Sark, lol

Comment by Gator Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 12:15 pm
Judge Waite would be proud. Rights of a citizen without the responsibilities.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 12:21 pm
I do not believe this. I don’t. I would love to see the actual questions. Surely this is about Chick Filet (and yes, I am exercising my constitutional right to ignore cutesy misspellings).

Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 12:54 pm
Quote I wish I had come up with: “I’ll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.”

Comment by Ray del Camino Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 12:58 pm
An unscientific online poll sponsored by a publication that predominately reaches out to businesses.

Yeah, this is a fair sample…

Comment by Dirty Red Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 1:01 pm
A discussion about free speech on this blog. Ironic, heh?

There’s no free speech on this blog. I noticed yesterday someone posted a link to a video that showed a state rep candidate ducking a question about tax increases. Do a search on YouTube for “Stephanie Kifowit” and you should be able to find it since it’s going viral everywhere else.

When I first read Rich’s blog a few years ago, I thought it was great, but increasingly, as illustrated by this post where Rich tries to undermine the results of someone else’s poll, I see more and more of a biased view and reporting.

So Rich, what is it…is this site intended to be your reporting or your opinion or some hybrid?

I’m not saying you aren’t entitled to your opinion, even if it’s wrong at times, but how would you explain what this site is today? Do you consider it balanced, fair and objective? Or, do you consider it your views, whatever those may be?

Comment by DanX Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 2:08 pm
===There’s no free speech on this blog.===

Absolutely correct. If you want free, unfettered comments, go to a newspaper website. I hold my commenters to a far higher standard.

And I think my strict policies on commenting have produced far more comments than any other non-big-media politics blog in the state, and more than many big media sites. The comments are just far more readable here because they’re policed. You can complain if you’d like, but apparently you still read it and participate.

If the good folks over at OpenLine don’t like it, they can always go somewhere else.

===So Rich, what is it…is this site intended to be your reporting or your opinion or some hybrid?===

Yes.

I think it’s pretty clear what this site is. Sorry if you can’t figure it out.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 2:14 pm
===Do a search on YouTube for “Stephanie Kifowit” and you should be able to find it since it’s going viral everywhere else.===

I thought the video was kinda pointless. She just didn’t respond, mumbling something about a video tracker intruding on a private event or something. An earlier video about another Democratic candidate stammering over how she hadn’t yet made up her mind about the tax hike was far more interesting and I did post that one.

But, yes, the Kifowit video has gone viral. Thanks for pointing that out. I’ll post it this week if I get a chance.

Also, notice that someone refers to Kifowit and another politician as “pigs” in the YouTube comments section. This is why I police my comments. You may think that’s fine, or funny or even appropriate. I don’t.

Perhaps you could just find another website, since this one may not be for you.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 2:19 pm
===Rich tries to undermine the results of someone else’s poll===

It’s a new way of polling and, as far as I can determine, not yet accepted in the field. If pointing out the problems with a poll like this makes me biased, then so be it.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 2:22 pm
@DanX -

I can tell you what this site Isn’t: It isn’t some where that we welcome spam — commercial or political — or drive-by comments.

There ARE plenty of sites out there where you have to sift through 20 pages of talking points to find an original thought. Most of us avoid them.

And, if you don’t like Capitolfax, one of the great things about America is that there’s no one stopping you from starting your own blog. Good luck.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 2:41 pm
Rich,
Regarding those whining about your blog: I think you do a great job on this blog and the higher standards show.

Regarding support for Corporate Personhood, if the poll is anywhere near accurate, that’s unfortunate. If a corporation took a psychological profile, it would be a classified as a sociopath.

Comment by Crime Fighter Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 2:55 pm
If Corporations are persons, then Crime Fighter could be sued for libel. Sociopath - really? I am profiling here, but I am pretty sure if many people with that mind set had been answering the poll the results would have been much different. I would be interested though in the validity and reliablility calculations of such a polling method, or the method that Rich uses also. Rich do you make such calculations?

Comment by johhnypizza Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 4:14 pm
===If the good folks over at OpenLine don’t like it, they can always go somewhere else.===

Hey, how did we get dragged into this? Blogs are people, too

By the way, Rich does a pretty good job keeping the discussions flowing here. On our site, we try to allow comments, even the bizarre ones, as long as they don’t cross certain lines.

Once in a while, we get some people who create trouble (ironically, it’s often annoyed elected officials or the jealous local newspaper staff), but generally we’ve noticed that the less we micromanage, the smoother things go.

Rich does a great job…although we have no idea when he sleeps

Comment by OpenlineBlog Tuesday, Aug 28, 12 @ 5:20 pm
@CrimeFighter -

As reported by Crain’s, the question was certainly framed to be about Chick-fil-A.

This, frankly, was Moreno’s fault. He should have framed the debate around Chick-fil-A’s discriminatory business practices and not comments by the company that highlight the rationale behind those practices.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Aug 29, 12 @ 8:22 am