OSU Survey: Campaign finance

   COLUMBUS, Ohio – Slightly more than two-thirds of Americans want to change or replace the current campaign finance system, according to results of a new nationwide survey released today by Ohio State University.

Support for campaign finance reform was strongest among political independents, younger people, the highly educated, those who knew the most about the campaign finance system, and those who trust the government the least.

Those surveyed were most supportive of reforms that would limit campaign spending, require more money to be raised within the states where candidates live, and that would limit soft money contributions.

The results of the survey also revealed Americans’ most liked and disliked political interest groups (see sidebar).

“More than two-thirds of Americans believe there are problems with the way campaigns are financed in this country and think something should be done about it,” said Tobin Grant, one of the co-leaders of the survey and a doctoral student in political science at Ohio State. “The level of dissatisfaction is high.”

Ohio State’s Survey Research Center interviewed 1,229 randomly selected people from across the country by telephone between Nov. 13 and Dec. 21, 2000. The survey was funded by The Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based organization that supports campaign finance reform. Grant co-led the survey with Janet Box-Steffensmeier, professor of political science at Ohio State, and Thomas Rudolph, a doctoral student in political science at the University of Minnesota.

In the survey, respondents were asked “When you think about how campaigns are paid for, which statement best reflects your view of the current campaign finance system.” Results showed 18 percent believed the current system is “broken and needs to be replaced” and 51 percent agreed that the system “has some problems and needs to be changed.” Another 23 percent thought the system had some problems but was “basically sound.” Only 8 percent believe the system “is alright the way it is and should not be changed.”

“Very few people want things to stay the same,” said Box-Steffensmeier. “While people may have differing views about the priority of campaign finance reform, and what exactly they want done, most people seem to agree that changes are needed.”

The survey found Americans were most likely to believe reform should be a high priority when it is presented as a way to give people an equal voice in politics. The researchers divided the sample into three groups and each group was asked how important a priority reform should be – but each group was given a different reason for changing the system.

One group was asked how important campaign finance reform should be “to give everyone an equal voice in politics.” This group was most supportive, with 52 percent saying campaign finance reform should be a top or high priority for the President and Congress. Slightly fewer (47 percent) thought reform should be a top or high priority when it was presented as a way “to reduce the role of money in politics.” The least support (42 percent) came among the group who were not given a reason, but simply asked how much a priority should be given to campaign finance reform.

“Americans seems to be most supportive of reform when it is seen as an equality issue, an issue of how much voice all people and all groups should have in the political process,” Grant said.

Grant said campaign finance reform is a unique issue in that its most ardent supporters are political independents. “On most issues, independents are moderates, with their views falling in between Democrats and Republicans. But campaign finance is different in that independents have the strongest views in support of reform.”

Democrats were slightly less in favor of reform than independents, while Republicans generally opposed reform.

The researchers also asked several questions that tested respondents’ knowledge of the current campaign finance system. They found that people who knew more about how the current system worked were more in favor of reform. “Educating people about how the system operates may be the best way to get them to support reform,” Grant said.

Those respondents who said they can “trust the government to do what is right” were also more likely to support the current system and oppose specific reforms.

The survey asked respondents whether they supported 10 specific reforms that have been proposed for the campaign finance system.

The most popular reform, supported by 84 percent of respondents, was to place a limit on spending by U.S. congressional candidates. But this proposal is probably one of the least likely to actually occur, Grant said, because of questions of whether it would be constitutional.

The next most popular reform – supported by 83 percent -- was to require candidates for the U.S. House and Senate to raise a certain percentage of their campaign funds within their own states.

About three-quarters of those surveyed said large soft money contributions to candidates should be eliminated. Far less support is given to other reforms, particularly public funding of congressional candidates (39 percent) or eliminating limits on contributions to candidates (34 percent).

(see sidebar below)

  COLUMBUS, Ohio – Environmentalists and pro-life groups are the most liked interest groups of Americans, while gay-rights groups and the tobacco lobby are the least liked, according to a new nationwide survey released today by Ohio State University.

The National Rifle Association was the most controversial, being named the third-most-liked interest group – and also the third-most-disliked.

“The NRA was the most polarizing interest group – people either loved them or hated them,” said Tobin Grant, one of the co-leaders of the survey and a doctoral student in political science at Ohio State.

Ohio State’s Survey Research Center interviewed 1,229 randomly selected people from across the country by telephone between Nov. 13 and Dec. 21, 2000. The survey was funded by The Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based organization that supports campaign finance reform. Grant co-led the survey with Janet Box-Steffensmeier, professor of political science at Ohio State, and Thomas Rudolph, professor of political science at the University of Minnesota.

The researchers divided the sample into two randomly selected groups. One group was asked which of 10 prominent interest groups they liked the most. The second group was asked which group they liked the least.

The most mentioned group for “most-liked” was environmentalists, who were chosen by 23.9 percent of respondents. Pro-life groups were second (21.1 percent), followed by the National Rifle Association (13.9 percent).

Gay-rights groups were mentioned as the least-liked group by 22.9 percent of respondents, followed by the tobacco lobby (18.3 percent) and the National Rifle Association (14.7 percent).

Respondents were more likely to believe that contributions from their most disliked group (versus their most liked group) caused the group to have too much influence on the political process. They also believed that their most liked group has a right to be active in the political process more than they believe that their most disliked group has such a right.

Contact: Tobin Grant: (614) 777-4559; grant.112@osu.edu

Janet Box-Steffensmeier, (614) 326-2533; jboxstef+@osu.edu,

Written by Jeff Grabmeier, (614) 292-8457; grabmeier.1@osu.edu

###

(LO)