New Election Day Polling: Strong Support for Fair Elections

To: Interested Parties
From: Celinda Lake, David Mermin, John Norris: Lake Research Partners
Re: Election Week Polling on Fair Elections Act and Money in
Date: November 4, 2010

A recent Lake Research Partners survey conducted during Election Week (Sunday to Tuesday) among 1,200 general election voters shows broad, bipartisan support for proposed legislation to reduce the role of big money in U.S. Senate and House races. (Downloadable PDF) This support is fueled by the concern these voters have over the role money played in the recent election.

Key Highlights

  • The Fair Elections Now Act is supported by almost two-thirds of voters.  The proposal, summarizing the Fair Elections Now Act currently before Congress (text below), is supported by 64% of voters (44% “strongly”) with just 20% opposed and 15% undecided. 
  • Support is strong across party lines.   Even in a highly polarized election, support for Fair Elections is solid across all parties.  It is supported by overwhelming margins among:
      • Democrats (75% support to 9% oppose);
      • Independents (66% support to 16% oppose);
      • Republicans (55% support to 32% oppose);
  • Most voters see the amount of money spent on political ads this year as a “real threat” to our elections and Congress.  By a wide margin, 75% of voters agree (including 58% strongly agree) with the following statement:

    “The amount of money being spent this year on political campaign ads by candidates, political parties, and outside groups poses a real threat to the fairness of our elections and the ability of Congress to get results on our most important issues.”

    Agreement for this statement is strong across party lines with 86% of Democrats in agreement, 76% of independents, and 64% of Republicans.

  • Voters demand urgent action this year to curb the influence of money in our elections.  Just under three out of four voters (74%) say it is very or somewhat urgent for Congress “to take action this year to reduce the influence of wealthy special interests on our elections.”  Again, there is strong agreement across party lines (Democrats 86% very/somewhat urgent”, independents 77%, Republicans 62%).
  • When it comes to taking action, voters narrowly prefer the Fair Elections approach to the DISCLOSE ACT approach.  In the survey we asked which of two approaches (full wording below) would they favor more to address the problem of spending and political contributions to candidates.  The Fair Elections approach is favored by 43% of voters compared to 36% for the DISCLOSE approach.
  • Support for Fair Elections is substantial even among Tea Party supporters because they too see the threat of an election system awash with money.  Tea Party supporters favor Fair Elections 49% to 35%, a strong double-digit margin for such a conservative group.  A majority of them agree (63% agree) with the statement about the threat posed by the amount of money spent on political ads this year.  A majority of Tea Party supporters (60%) also say it is urgent for Congress to take action this year to curb the influence of wealthy interests.

Text of the descriptions:

Fair Elections Now Act: 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 at no cost to taxpayers by auctioning the unused broadcast spectrum.  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?

Fair Elections vs. DISCLOSE Act: Which of the two following options do you think would be the better approach for Congress to take in order to address the problem of spending and political contributions to candidates? [ROTATE]

_[DISCLOSE Act Approach] Congress should require outside groups that are not connected to any candidates and that run their own political campaign ads for or against a candidate to disclose their major donors and who's paying for the ads.

_[Fair Elections Approach]  Congress should make it possible for candidates who agree not to take large contributions to run competitive campaigns by matching small contributions of $100 or less from a Fair Elections Fund, paid for without raising taxes.

Lake Research Partners designed and administered this survey which was conducted by telephone (both land and cell lines) using professional interviewers between October 31 and November 2, 2010.  The margin of error is +/- 2.8%.

11-2010-fairelections-polling.pdf