1. Money in Politics: Making Everyday Americans’ Voices Matter
Overview of public opinion data
October 24, 2013
Presented by Celinda Lake
Washington, DC | Berkeley, CA | New York, NY
LakeResearch.com

2. Overall Key Summary
Overwhelming majorities of voters nationwide believe that there is too much influence of money in politics. They believe that this influence makes government more corrupt and undermines democracy. Voters feel that their voice is being taken away, and that politicians listen to special interests and financial supporters, not ordinary citizens.
Voters see small donor financing of campaigns (also called “clean” or “fair” elections) as a solution to ending the corruption that results from the money in politics influence. Nationwide, voters want change, and solid majorities support proposals that include a public financing component.
Voters in both Arizona and Maine (two states that already have Clean Elections systems) want to keep clean elections, and would be less likely to support a politician who wants to repeal the law. However, it is important to continue to educate voters on the current law and explain how the system works. Support increases substantially once voters hear an explanation of the system.
In New York state, a public financing proposal failed in the legislature, but New York voters were wildly supportive. A majority also feel a complete overhaul is needed to change the way elections are financed in New York, and voters want comprehensive, not minor changes.
The best frame to push public financing taps into the idea that the system is a solution that will give power back to the voters. 2

3. The problem: Perceptions of the influence of money in politics and its effect on democracy
Voters overwhelmingly believe that there is too much money in politics, that the influence of this money makes both Congress and state government more corrupt, and that democracy is undermined because of it. Voters feel “voiceless” and believe that politicians listen to special interests and financial supporters, not ordinary citizens.

4. There is way too much corporate money in politics.
Overwhelming numbers of voters agree that there is too much corporate money in politics and that the secret flow of corporate campaign expenditures is bad for democracy. These perceptions are prevalent across political parties.
There is way too much corporate money in politics.
The secret flow of corporate campaign expenditures is bad for democracy.
% Agree among…
Democrats: 94%
Independents: 91%
Republicans: 82%
% Agree among…
Democrats: 88%
Independents: 80%
Republicans: 76%
Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with this statement about corporate money in politics? 4
Survey of 804 American adults conducted by Bannon Communications Research on behalf of Demos. October 8-October 10, 2012, MOE is +/-3.5%

5. More than 8 in 10 voters agree that political spending has made Congress more corrupt, and over three-quarters believe it has made state politics more corrupt.
Corporate political spending has made Congress even more corrupt than it was before.
Corporate political spending has made state politics more corrupt than before.
Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with this statement about money in politics? 5
Survey of 804 American adults conducted by Bannon Communications Research on behalf of Demos. October 8-October 10, 2012, MOE is +/-3.5%.

6. Who does Congress listen to?
Nationally, voters believe that members of Congress are controlled by those who fund their campaigns and special interests, not the average voter.
Who does Congress listen to?
TEXT OF QUESTION: Now I'm going to read you some pairs of statements. After I read each pair, please tell me whether the FIRST statement or the SECOND statement comes closer to your own view, even if neither is exactly right. Special interests/financial supporters have too much influence over politicians in Washington today. OR
Ordinary citizens still have the ability to influence what politicians do in Washington today. 6
Democracy Corps, Feb 2010 6

7. Voters overwhelmingly agree (81%) that there is too much money spent on campaigns and elections and reject the idea that there should be no limits. They are also “fed up” with the secret money that undermines democracy.
Now I'm going to read you some pairs of statements. After I read each pair, please tell me whether the FIRST statement or the SECOND statement comes closer to your own view, even if neither is exactly right.
STATEMENT 1: There is too much big money spent on political campaigns and elections today and reasonable limits should be placed on campaign contributions and spending.
STATEMENT 1: Given what I see in the presidential race, I am fed up with the big donors and secret money that controls which candidates we hear about. It undermines democracy.
STATEMENT 2: Because electing our political leaders is one of the most important things we do as a nation, there should not be any limits on campaign contributions or spending.
STATEMENT 2: Money is always going to be spent in campaigns and at least all the candidates were able to get heard and voters got to decide in the end.
+65
+36
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for Democracy Corps and Public Campaign Action Fund likely 2012 voters (1000 weighted) were interviewed from January 8-11, The MOE is +/- 3.1%. 7 7

8. Solution: Citizen funding of campaigns
Voters nationwide have an appetite for change when it comes to the way elections are financed. A fair elections-style reform that includes small donor driven matching funds receives support from more than 3 in 5 voters, including a majority of Republicans.

9. Nearly three-fourths of voters want to change the way elections are financed—including a majority who want major changes.
72 “changes”
When it comes to the way we finance election campaigns, do you think we need to make major changes, minor changes, or should we not make any changes to the way election campaigns are financed, or aren’t you sure 9
LRP Survey of 1500 likely voters nationwide, June 26-30, 2010, MOE +/-2.5%.

10. Voters support the Fair Elections-style reform by almost a three to one margin.
Small Donor Ballot
Darker colors indicate intensity.
TEXT OF BALLOT
Now I’m going to read you a description of a specific proposal that would change the way federal election campaigns are funded. The goal is to reduce the impact of special interest money on Congress.
Under this plan, candidates for Congress could run for office without raising large campaign contributions. Instead, they would collect a large number of small contributions from their home state in order to qualify for a limited amount of funding for their campaigns. They would be prohibited from taking any contributions over one hundred dollars from anyone, but would still be allowed to take small contributions. Contributions of a hundred dollars or less from their home state would be matched on a four-to-one basis, up to a strict limit, from a Fair Elections Fund, which would be financed by assessing a fee on big corporations receiving the largest government contracts.
+40 Favor
Do you favor or oppose this proposal to fund campaigns with small contributions and limited public funds, or don't you have an opinion on this? 10
LRP Survey, 2010 10

11. Among the Rising American Electorate:
Nearly 3 in 4 Democrats are in favor of the Fair Elections Now Act. Notably, the Act has majority support among Republicans as well. The margin of support is slightly higher among some of the Rising American Electorate, including women, African Americans, and Latinos.
Democrats
Independents
Republicans
Among the Rising American Electorate:
Women: 64% Favor, 18% Oppose
Under 30: 55% Favor, 29% Oppose
African Americans: 66% Favor, 15% Oppose
Latinos: 65% Favor, 17% Oppose 11
LRP Survey, 2010

12. Arizona
A majority of Arizona voters favor the Clean Elections system, passed by the voters in 1998, and support grows substantially once voters are given information. Nearly two-thirds oppose repeal. A majority also say they would be less likely to support a candidate who wants to repeal the law.

13. A majority of voters say they would oppose a candidate who favors repeal or support a candidate who favors Clean Elections.
Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate for the Arizona legislature who wants to repeal the Clean Elections Act, or would it not make a difference?
Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate for the Arizona legislature who favors the Clean Elections Act or would it not make a difference?
Support Repeal Candidate
Support Clean Election Candidate 13
LRP Survey, April 2011

14. Maine
Keeping the Clean Elections system is important to 82% of Maine voters, and over three-quarters say the legislature should NOT repeal the law. Maine voters have a solid understanding of how money influences politics, and they feel that their own voices are being taken away. They do think the system opens the playing field, provides more opportunities for participation, and distinguishes candidates who participate in the system as having “integrity.”

15. Importance of keeping Maine Clean Elections
Keeping clean elections is important to more than 8 in 10 Maine voters, and is extremely important to a solid majority (61%). Independent voters also place high importance on keeping elections clean.
Importance of keeping Maine Clean Elections
Voters Overall
Independents
Darker colors indicate intensity.
TEXT OF QUESTION: Citizens initiated the Maine Clean Election Act, and in 1996, Maine voters passed it into law. Since 2000, qualified candidates for state office
who limit their spending receive limited public funds to run for office rather than relying on campaign donations from private sources.
How important do you think it is that Maine continue to have clean elections? 15
Pan Atlantic SMS Group Omnibus Poll, 401 voters, April 25-May 2, 2011, MOE +/-4.9%. 15

16. Repeal Maine Clean Elections
Maine voters are clear that they do not want the legislature to repeal Clean Elections.
Repeal Maine Clean Elections
Voters Overall
Independents
TEXT OF QUESTION: Some members of Maine's Legislature oppose the Clean Election Act and have proposed legislation to repeal or partially repeal the law.
Do you think that the Legislature should repeal Clean Elections? 16
Pan Atlantic SMS Group Omnibus Poll, 401 voters, April 25-May 2, 2011, MOE +/-4.9%. 16

17. Using money to influence policy and win elections is well understood by voters. This is a powerful narrative to voters about how politics and Washington work. They also connect money to having your voice heard, which means that they don’t believe their own voice is heard. They see lobbyists as more of the problem than the legislators they are influencing.
“Money talks…that politician does the walk.” (Woman)
“They're [lobbyists] promoting the companies rather than they're not representing the people.” (Man)
“They (lobbyists/donors) find out about things that we don’t find out about and sneak in and buy things up.” (Woman)
“The rich that are getting their voices heard, by the fact that they you know they have the money and have the money coming in, they can support the special interests so if there's a Clean Election policy that would help the people who, you know don't get as much to compete and promote interest of people who don't make as much” (Man)
Lake Research conducted two focus groups among non-college voters in Bangor, Maine on July 24, 2012. 17

18. The Clean Election system also allows voters, particularly salient among women, to make a judgment about the candidates who run as Clean candidates.
“He’s starting out with integrity.” (Woman)
“They’re not gonna let somebody run them.” (Woman)
Lake Research conducted two focus groups among non-college voters in Bangor, Maine on July 24, 2012. 18

19. New York
Although the New York reform ultimately failed in the legislature, voters were wildly supportive of a campaign finance system that includes small donor matching funds. Additionally, 58% of New Yorkers believe there needs to be a complete overhaul of the way campaigns are financed in their state, and a majority support comprehensive changes to the system.

20. Nearly 8 in 10 (79%) of voters support a comprehensive campaign finance reform proposal that includes small donor driven matching funds. Voters give this proposal their strong support, both with and without Governor Cuomo’s name attached to it.
Without Cuomo
With Cuomo
+71
+68
This proposal [by Governor Cuomo] provides qualified candidates a limited amount of public matching funds if they agree to raise small donations only from voters in the district where they are running for office. There would be lower contribution limits, disclosure of spending by outside groups, and strict enforcement of all campaign finance laws. This proposal would include all races for New York state offices.
Do you favor or oppose this proposal to reform how money in politics influences elections, or are you undecided?
LRP conducted a survey of 500 Likely Voters in New York State, with an Oversample of 300 Likely Voters in State Senate Districts 14, 23, 34, 38, and 53, December MOE is +/-4.4%. 20

21. In both Democratic and Republican Senate districts, more than three-quarters of voters support this proposal.
Democratic Senate Districts
Republican Senate Districts
+71
+69
This proposal [by Governor Cuomo] provides qualified candidates a limited amount of public matching funds if they agree to raise small donations only from voters in the district where they are running for office. There would be lower contribution limits, disclosure of spending by outside groups, and strict enforcement of all campaign finance laws. This proposal would include all races for New York state offices.
Do you favor or oppose this proposal to reform how money in politics influences elections, or are you undecided? 21

22. After hearing arguments on both sides, three-quarters (75%) of voters continue to support comprehensive campaign finance reform. Arguing that matching funds are too expensive and other priorities are more important fails to knock down public support for campaign finance reform.
Supporters of Governor Cuomo’s comprehensive campaign finance reform say that the government will never work for middle and working class people again until we have serious change in Albany where lobbyists and special interest money have too much influence. New York should adopt Governor Cuomo’s reform proposal that centers on small donations to candidates from their constituents and matching those with limited public funds. Until we do, the special interests will always find loopholes to benefit them, lawmakers will say anything to avoid real reform, and our voices will continue to be drowned out by big money.
Opponents of comprehensive campaign finance reform say that New York can’t afford to spend our precious tax dollars on political campaigns when we need to invest in more important priorities like jobs and education. And we certainly can’t afford a tax increase. We should enforce our campaign finance laws and disclose all contributions, but we shouldn’t be wasting tens of millions of taxpayer dollars in welfare for political candidates when we have more important priorities to fund.
+56 22
Do you favor or oppose Governor Cuomo’s comprehensive campaign finance reform proposal?

23. Support for campaign finance reform is even stronger when proponents argue for returning our government back to the people and replacing corporate-funded elections with small donor driven elections.
Supporters of Governor Cuomo’s comprehensive campaign finance reform say that an overhaul is needed because its time we return to government of, by and for the people, not government of, bought, and paid for by special interests. If corporate special interests want to invest in our government, let them pay their fair share of taxes, rather than paying for politicians who will write them special tax breaks. We need to replace corporate-funded elections with fair elections, and put our government back in the hands of ordinary New Yorkers through campaigns that rely on small donations and limited matching funds.
Opponents of comprehensive campaign finance reform say that New York can’t afford to spend our precious tax dollars on political campaigns when we need to invest in more important priorities like jobs and education. And we certainly can’t afford a tax increase. We should enforce our campaign finance laws and disclose all contributions, but we shouldn’t be wasting tens of millions of taxpayer dollars in welfare for political candidates when we have more important priorities to fund.
+62 23
Do you favor or oppose Governor Cuomo’s comprehensive campaign finance reform proposal?

24. After hearing arguments on both sides, strong majorities of voters across party lines support the comprehensive reform proposal, including 82% of Democrats, 75% of independents and 66% of Republicans.
Democrats
Independents
Republicans
+71
+61
+36
Supporters of Governor Cuomo’s comprehensive campaign finance reform say… Opponents of comprehensive campaign finance reform say…Do you favor or oppose Governor Cuomo’s comprehensive campaign finance reform proposal? 24

25. By a 2 to 1 margin, voters prefer overhauling campaign finance laws over making modest changes, while only 9% want to keep the laws we currently have. Support is even stronger among independents, with 65% supporting an overhaul of the campaign finance laws.
% Support Overhaul:
Democrats: 58%
Independents: 65%
Republicans: 52%
During the last election, tens of millions of dollars were spent on campaigns for the New York state legislature. Thinking about the role of special interest money in politics in New York, do you believe we need to overhaul our campaign finance laws, make modest changes, or leave them the way they are? 25

26. After hearing more details of what comprehensive or small changes would entail, voters continue to support the larger comprehensive changes which include small donor matching funds. Just 30% support small changes, while the majority (52%) support comprehensive change.
Some have said that we need a larger comprehensive reform package to reduce the influence of money in politics, while others say we need smaller changes. Those that support smaller changes would like more disclosure of money in politics and lower contribution limits. Those that support a larger reform, support disclosure and lower contribution limits, but also want to limit candidates to raising money only from small contributors from their own districts with limited public matching funds.
+22 26
Which do you agree with more -- smaller changes, or a larger comprehensive package, or should we leave our campaign finance laws alone?

27. The top positive message in favor of public funding of campaigns takes a strong populist tone—juxtaposing corporate influence and their level of taxation with that of the average working family.
[Of, By, For] It’s time we return to government of, by, and for the people, not government of, bought, and paid for by special interests. If big businesses want to invest in our government, let them pay their fair share of taxes rather than paying for politicians who’ll write them special tax breaks. Right now, the biggest corporations in America pay a smaller percent of income tax than the average working family, and they even get special bonuses for outsourcing American jobs. Since the crisis on Wall Street less than two years ago, the banks have spent nearly a million dollars a day lobbying in Washington—while taxpayers have been bailing them out. The job of Wall Street bankers is to get a good return on their investment, and unfortunately, they’ve taken those skills to Washington. It’s time we replaced corporate-funded elections with fair elections. We need to put elections back in the hands of ordinary Americans. Our leaders should work for us, not their corporate sponsors.
LRP Survey, June The survey was preceded by focus groups and online dial testing conducted in conjunction with Westen Strategies and McKinnon Media.
Darker colors represent intensity. 27
Next I’m going to read you a few statements that have been made in favor of the proposal for public funding of campaigns. For each one, please tell me if the statement is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, not too convincing, or not at all convincing reason to support this proposal.

28. Accountability is also a strong theme, as well as the need for Americans to have their voices heard.
[Accountable] As long as politicians are accountable to the corporations and lobbyists who finance their campaigns, they’re never going to be accountable to the people who elected them.  It’s time ordinary Americans had their voices heard.  Our elected officials should be concerned with solving OUR problems and addressing OUR concerns, not those of special interests who can afford to pay for special treatment.  It’s time we take our government back, with elections that are fair to ordinary Americans, where candidates for Congress only get funding if they share the values and concerns of the people back home.  And let big corporations pay their fair share for what we all deserve—fair, clean elections that put American voters back in the driver’s seat—instead of paying for high-priced lobbyists.  It’s time we take the “for sale” sign off our government, so that it works for working and middle class Americans.
Darker colors represent intensity.
LRP Survey, June 2010 28
Next I’m going to read you a few statements that have been made in favor of the proposal for public funding of campaigns. For each one, please tell me if the statement is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, not too convincing, or not at all convincing reason to support this proposal.

29. Another strong message speaks to voters’ widespread sense that systemic corruption pervades Congress.
[Rotten Barrel] The problem with our political system isn’t so much that individual members of Congress are corrupt but that the system is corrupt. Sure, there are bad apples in the barrel, but the real problem is that the barrel is rotten.  No matter how honest you are, when your ability to get elected depends on collecting millions of dollars from special interests, there’s no way you can be objective. And having to spend so much time fund-raising just discourages good people from running and prevents those who do get elected from doing what we sent them there to do: solve the problems of everyday Americans. It’s time our elected officials started listening to the voices of everyday Americans, not their corporate sponsors. The only way that’s going to happen is if we clean up our elections, and do it now.
Darker colors represent intensity.
LRP Survey, June 2010 29
Next I’m going to read you a few statements that have been made in favor of the proposal for public funding of campaigns. For each one, please tell me if the statement is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, not too convincing, or not at all convincing reason to support this proposal.

30. While the opposition message does not carry the weight of the positive messages, it resonates with many voters.
[Opposition] This proposal is just welfare for politicians. It will take taxpayers’ money and give it to any candidate to pay for their bumper-stickers, salaries for family members, and negative television ads. Think about it for a minute. Instead of spending our tax dollars for education, jobs, or public safety, these incumbent politicians want to put that money into their own campaign bank accounts and rig the game for themselves. We know what will happen because similar efforts have been tried and failed. Extreme candidates on the left and the right who have no chance of winning will come out of the woodwork. They’ll run for office and spout their views – ones that we may find offensive – all with government funding. It’s simply un-American to have the federal government fund private political speech. And it will do no good. Money in politics is just like water running down a hill – the special interests will always find a way around whatever laws are passed. Why would we waste tax dollars on something that will never work?
Darker colors represent intensity.
LRP Survey, June 2010 30
Next I’m going to read you a statement that has been made against the proposal for public funding of campaigns. Please tell me if the statement raises serious doubts, some doubts, minor doubts, or no real doubts at all about this proposal.

31. Positive Messages by Party ID (% very convincing/total convincing)
The “Accountable” message is the top message for Independents and Republicans and is the second most powerful message for Democrats.
Positive Messages by Party ID (% very convincing/total convincing)
MESSAGE
DEMS (ID)
INDS (ID)
REPUB (ID)
Of, By, For
(57%) 87%
(36%) 81%
(44%) 75%
Accountable
(54%) 79%
(46%) 78%
(45%) 75%
Rotten Barrel
(53%) 88%
(40%) 76%
(44%) 71% 31
Next I’m going to read you a few statements that have been made in favor of the proposal for public funding of campaigns. For each one, please tell me if the statement is a very convincing, somewhat convincing, not too convincing, or not at all convincing reason to support this proposal.

32. Communication and Strategy Recommendations
While voters are favorable toward the idea of “clean” and “fair” elections generally, support increases substantially when these proposals are explained. Providing information is important, including in states that already have these systems and want to keep them.
Voters in states that have clean elections, like Maine, are wary about the system’s effectiveness. Education and messaging is key—voters want to know what they’re getting out of the system, and how exactly the system works. Voters, however, do not want to repeal their laws.
The best positive frame emphasizes how clean and fair elections will give power back to the voters. By and large, voters already believe that there is too much influence of money in politics, and the idea that their power and control is being taken away by special interests is very believable. They are eager for a solution, and framing public financing as the way to minimize corruption and restore control to ordinary voters works.
Provide information
Inoculate against concerns
Frame the issue 32

33. Moving Forward: Good Policy & Good Politics
A citizen funded small donor matching fair elections system taps into the theme of giving power back to the voters. Voters want to be in charge, and emphasizing how a fair elections system can restore their control resonates. Accountability and reducing corruption in government are also strong themes, and may be especially effective in the current political context in which voters are highly dissatisfied with politicians and the government.

34. Washington, DC | Berkeley, CA | New York, NY
LakeResearch.com
Celinda Lake
For a copy of this presentation, go to
Visit Public Campaign at
For more information, contact:
Jeff Robinson, National Political Director, Public Campaign
Phone: (202)