New National Survey Shows Robust Support for ‘Clean Money,’ Full Public Financing of Elections

This selection was excerpted from
www.publicampaign.org, dated April 3, 2000.

“By a margin of 68 to 19%, voters support the idea of full public financing-Clean Money-for federal elections as is the law already in Maine, Arizona, Vermont and Massachusetts,” said Ellen S. Miller, Public Campaign’s president. “This model goes even further than those proposed by Al Gore and Bill Bradley in the presidential campaign. This survey shows the public is still way ahead of the politicians in understanding that the system needs a complete overhaul, though some politicians are beginning to catch on.”

Other findings of the national survey of 800 likely voters (margin of error 3.5%), conducted for Public Campaign by The Mellman Group:

• When told that George W. Bush has raised more than $70 million, nearly three-fourths (71%) say Bush’s fundraising prowess is “excessive and a sign of what’s wrong with politics” rather than “impressive and a sign of his broad-based support” (20%). Voter distress with Bush’s fundraising has increased by 15 points since the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll asked the same question last July. Even 50% of Republicans feel this way.
• A large plurality say that money, not ability, explains Bush’s success. Forty percent (40%) believe that Bush will be the Republican nominee because of “the amount of money he raised,” as opposed to his “views on the issues” (20%) or his “character” (15%).
• Majority support for Clean Money runs across every demographic group. Although Democrats (76% favor-15% oppose) and independents (71-14%) are most supportive, Republicans also favor it by more than a two-to-one margin (59-27%). Even self-identified “conservative Republicans” favor it by almost 20 points (51-32%).

“Public support for the Clean Money approach is extraordinarily strong,” Nick Nyhart, Public Campaign’s executive director, noted. Under the Clean Money system, candidates who voluntarily agree to raise no private money and abide by spending limits can qualify for full public financing for their campaigns. “Even after people heard all the usual arguments advanced by opponents, our poll found almost no change in their views,” Nyhart added. “Voters clearly want to replace private money with full public financing of primary and general elections.” Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) and Representative John Tierney (D-MA) have introduced federal bills modeled on this approach, and this November, Missouri and Oregon will decide on Clean Money initiatives on their state ballots.

• The general public desire for campaign finance reform is substantial and rising. A clear majority (59%) favors major changes in the system, up from 52% in a similar Mellman Group poll in August 1996. This same percentage believes the problems with the current system are getting worse.
• Senator John McCain’s reform message apparently added to his appeal. He is the most popular of the former and current presidential candidates, with a favorable-unfavorable rating of 58-29%, compared to 50-42% for Gore and 47-46% for Bush. He is also better liked by the 59% of the public that believes major changes are needed in the system.
• Voters are most upset about special interests influence-buying, when asked to rank their concerns about the system. “Buying help from politicians with campaign contributions” (36%) and “politicians becoming corrupted by campaign contributions, perks, and favors from special interests” (34%) were their central concerns.
• Overwhelming majorities think special interest contributions affect the voting behavior of Members of Congress (87%), including even their own representative (82%). This suggests that Members’ insulation from negatives about the institution of Congress in general is diminishing.
• Voters have clear ideas about what constitutes reform. While some in Congress have proposed “reforming” the system by tripling the individual contribution limit from $1,000 to $3,000, fewer than one in ten voters (9%) support this proposal. Over half (51%) want to keep the current limit, and almost a third (30%) favor reducing the limit to $500.
• Voters also show little sympathy for one oft-used argument against campaign finance reform. Fewer than one-quarter (24%) believe a Member would oppose reform because he thinks “that campaign finance reform was a limitation on free speech and would be bad for the country.” By contrast, a clear majority (60%) thinks that a Member who opposes reform does so because he feels “that campaign finance reform would hurt his chances of getting re-elected.”