Broward County FL Survey Powerpoint

1
WINNING ON CLEAN MONEY Testing and Developing
Public Support
Prepared by
1000 BROADWAY SUITE 294 OAKLAND, CA 94607 PHONE
510-286-2097 FAX [phone]
1726 M St., NW SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, DC
20036 PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
2
Experience in California Proposition 89 failed,
despite a strong belief that campaign
contributions harm policy.
3
Key Summary

• In November of 2006, voters in California
  overwhelmingly rejected Proposition 89 (text
  below) by a wide margin of 74 to 26.
• Voters in California are of two minds they agree
  excessive campaign contributions are bad, but
  they are reluctant to use tax dollars to fix the
  problem.
• Another factor special to the state is
  initiative fatigue.

Text of Prop. 89 Provides that candidates for
state elective office meeting certain eligibility
requirements, including collection of a specified
number of 5.00 contributions from voters, may
voluntarily receive public campaign funding from
the Fair Political Practices Commission, in
amounts varying by elective office and type of
election. Increases income tax rate on
corporations and financial institutions by 0.2
percent to fund program. Imposes new limits on
campaign contributions to state-office candidates
and campaign committees, and new restrictions on
contributions and expenditures by lobbyists and
corporations. Summary of estimate by
Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of
fiscal impact on state and local governments
Increased revenues (primarily from increased
taxes on corporations and financial institutions)
totaling more than 200 million annually to pay
for the public financing of political campaigns
for state elected offices.
4
Leading up to the Proposition 89 vote,
Californians agreed campaign contributions are
negatively influencing policy. However, a
majority opposed using taxpayer money for public
funding.
Do you think campaign contributions are currently
having a good effect or a bad effect on the
public policy decisions made by state elected
officials in Sacramento, or are campaign
contributions making no difference?
Would you favor or oppose having a system of
public funding for state and legislative
campaigns in California if it cost each taxpayer
a few dollars a year to run?
CA Inst. Of Public Policy, 9/13-20/06, 1,091
likely voters in California
5
Complexity can be a major obstacle to voter
support for initiatives.
For the following items, please say if you
strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat
disagree, or strongly disagree The ballot
wording for citizens initiatives is often too
complicated and confusing for voters to
understand what happens if the initiative passes.
CA Inst. Of Public Policy, 9/13-20/06, 2,003
California adults
6
Uses of Opinion Research

• Assess political landscape
• Shape title and components of proposal
• Identify target audiences
• Develop and test messages

7
Experience in California Starting locally can
help build support and create positive examples
for later statewide action.
8
Key Summary

• Lake Research Partners tested a clean money
  proposal (text below) for local elections in the
  city of Los Angeles for the California Clean
  Money Campaign.
• Three out of five LA voters support this type of
  reform, but younger, less educated, and minority
  voters are more divided.
• Elements of the proposal that are strongest to
  voters relate to disclosure, removing private
  money, and tough enforcement measures.

Clean Money and Fair Elections Act It would
create a voluntary system of publicly-funded
political campaigns for elected offices in the
city of Los Angeles. Under this proposal, each
participating candidate would receive a set
amount of money from a publicly financed election
fund. Spending by candidates would be limited to
the amount they receive from the fund.
LRP/Bellwether Research poll for PCAF Common
Cause, 6/8-15/06, 1,000 likely voters nationwide
9
A solid majority of Los Angeles voters support
clean money reform for local elections.
If this proposal were on the ballot in Los
Angeles, would you favor or oppose this ballot
measure?
The base of support for this reform tends to be
older non-college women, white Democrats,
non-college whites and it enjoys strong support
among both Democrats and Republicans.
While no group opposes this reform, its support
is weaker among minority votersespecially
Latinos, and voters under 40, independents, and
voters with no more than a high school education.
LRP survey, 6/19-22/06, 600 likely voters in the
city of Los Angeles
10
Strong components of the proposal include
disclosure of personal funds, banning of private
money, and tough enforcement measures.
Here is some additional information about the
proposed Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. For
each of the following, please tell me if it makes
you MORE likely or LESS likely to support this
proposal or would it not make a difference?
LRP survey, 6/19-22/06, 600 likely voters in the
city of Los Angeles
11
A National Perspective on Clean Elections Tying
voters frustration to the solution of clean
elections.
12
Almost two-thirds support an initial proposal for
publicly funded elections.
Under this proposal, candidates would no longer
raise money from private sources. Instead, each
candidate would receive a set amount of money
from a publicly financed election fund. Spending
by candidates would be limited to the amount they
receive from the fund. Generally speaking, do you
favor or oppose this proposal?
SUPPORT BY PARTY ID Dem 71 Favor, 17
Oppose Ind 71 Favor, 15 Oppose Rep 57 Favor,
24 Oppose
47
Darker colors indicate intensity
LRP/Bellwether Research poll for PCAF Common
Cause, 6/8-15/06, 1,000 likely voters nationwide
13
That support grows when voters hear there will be
tough enforcement included.
Under this plan, candidates who agree to spending
limits and who agree to take no private
contributions would qualify for a set amount of
money from a public election fund. Each
candidate would receive the same amount.
Candidates would not be allowed to raise or spend
additional money beyond what they receive from
the fund. There would be tough enforcement and
accountability with published reports open to the
public. Generally speaking, do you favor or
oppose this proposal?
A net Shift of 11 from shorter version, with
large shifts among men (21), African Americans
(38), and Democrats (17)
58
SUPPORT BY PARTY ID Dem 80 Favor, 8
Oppose Ind 78 Favor, 11 Oppose Rep 65 Favor,
26 Oppose
Darker colors indicate intensity
LRP/Bellwether Research poll for PCAF Common
Cause, 6/8-15/06, 1,000 likely voters nationwide
14
Cutting from the budgetespecially pork
projectsis a more favorable option than even a
small raise in taxes.
Now, I'm going to read you some different ways to
pay for publicly financed elections. I'd like to
rate how appealing each is to you on a scale from
ZERO to FIVE, with FIVE means it is VERY
appealing and ZERO meaning it is not at all
appealing.
LRP/Bellwether Research poll for PCAF Common
Cause, 6/8-15/06, 1,000 likely voters nationwide
15
The top messages connect the cost of corruption
and how Washington acts.
Now, I'm going to read you some other statements
people have made about publicly financed
elections. Please tell me whether each, if it
were true, is a very convincing, somewhat
convincing, not too convincing, or not at all
convincing reason to support publicly financed
elections. If you are not sure how you feel
about a particular item, please say so.
1 for Undecided on Proposals (49 Very, 80
Total)
2 for Undecided on Proposals (42 Very, 83
Total)
LRP/Bellwether Research poll for PCAF Common
Cause, 6/8-15/06, 1,000 likely voters
16
Text of top messages
CLEAN UP CONGRESS It's time to clean up
Congress.  The current system of funding
elections allows powerful interests and lobbyists
to give millions to the campaigns of elected
officials who are supposed to represent the rest
of us. We need to crack down on gifts and free
travel from corporations and lobbyists, hold
Congress accountable and tackle the real source
of the problem -- soaring campaign costs paid for
by wealthy special interests and lobbyists.  When
campaigns are paid for by a public Clean Money
fund, Congress will be accountable to us, not
special interests.  You get what you pay for.
COSTING US NOW The system we have now is costing
every family in America billions of tax dollars
of special interest pork barrel projects, laws
that benefit well-connected CEOs like oil company
and drug company executives instead of working
families. We need to change the system so the
voices of ordinary working families can be heard
and not just the rich and powerful.
GAS Politicians in Washington all say they want
to do something about the cost of gas, but they
dont seem to ever accomplish anything. Instead
they make it worse by giving oil companies 16
billion in tax breaks after the oil and gas
industry gave politicians more than 7 million
for their elections. We need publicly financed
elections to make sure politicians listen to us,
not just special interests like the big oil
companies
VOICES HEARD Politicians in Washington need to
listen to us more. It seems like special interest
lobbyists get visits from politicians whenever
they want while voters only see politicians when
they want something during an election. We need
the voice of the people to be heard again in
Washington, and cutting off special interest
money with publicly financed elections is the
best way to get politicians to listen to us.
17
Lessons from Arizona and Maine Focusing on a
Lobbyists/Special Interest frame blunts the More
bureaucracy and taxes attack.
18
Key Summary

• In 1998, Arizona narrowly passed a clean
  elections law (51 to 49). Polling done by LRP
  in September of 1998 showed a similarly close
  margin (52 support, 20 oppose, 27 undecided).
• The state of Arizona was unique in that it has a
  strong libertarian streak that would make it
  prone to reject such a system, but also had a
  recent history of corruption and scandals with
  statewide elected officials.
• Voters responded to the combination of disclosure
  and openness with tough measures such as banning
  PAC money, spending limits, and a watchdog
  commission with open records online.
• Messages with a strong populist frame of fighting
  against big money, expensive favors, and
  wealthy contributors resonated strongly with
  voters.
• The strong enforcement provisions of the Arizona
  law helped answer voters concerns that this
  reform would be a waste because politicians would
  find a way to beat the bureaucracy.

19
Strong messages about big money and lobbyists
resonated with Arizona voters.
Now, I am going to read you some of the reasons
people have given for voting Yes on Proposition
200. Please tell me whether each reason I read
is a VERY convincing, SOMEWHAT convincing, NOT
very convincing, or not AT ALL convincing reason
to vote YES
LRP survey on AZ. Prop 200, 9/1-3/98, 600 likely
voters. Asked of half the sample.
20
Text of top positive messages from Arizona
ONLY WEALTHY RUN Our political system is so
driven by money now, only the very wealthy and
those who have access to big money can afford to
run. The Clean Elections Act will level the
playing field by letting good people without
access to big money compete for office.
SPECIAL FAVORS/BIG MONEY The result of unlimited
special interest money in politics is all too
clear expensive favors for special interests
that finance campaigns, such as Jerry Colangelos
taxpayer financed baseball stadium. We need
clean elections so politicians will stop giving
special favors to their big money contributors.
ARIZONA SCANDALS Arizona politics have become so
corrupt its an embarrassment. Keating, AZSCAM,
Mecham, Symington. It never ends. To stop these
scandals, we have to take big money OUT of
politics by passing the Citizens Clean Elections
Act.
SPECIAL INTERESTS LOBBYISTS We need the Clean
Elections Act to break the power of special
interests and lobbyists and kick their big money
contributions out of Arizona elections.
Elections should belong to the people, not just
special interests and the very wealthy.
21
Key Summary Points

• In 1996, Maine passed a clean elections law by a
  slightly wider margin than Arizona (56 to 44).
• While voters did react strongly against the
  rising costs of campaigns, a stronger frame was
  to tie those contributions to the lobbyists,
  special interests, and the influence it bought.
• Much like the use of recent scandals in Arizona,
  specific examples of the cost of corruption to
  these voters and their top issue concerns brought
  this issue home to them.

22
Moving Forward Contrasting the cost of this
reform with the cost of the current corruption.
23
Moving Forward

• Campaigns matter and the political environment
  matters. As Proposition 89 shows us, these
  campaigns are dependent upon strong coalitions,
  message development, and fundraising to
  communicate with voters.
• More and more Americans are aware of the lobbying
  scandals that come with excessive influence.
  Lobbyists are now the ubiquitous poster boys for
  why this reform is needed.
• However, tax sensitivity is still a concern for
  voters. Their economic concerns need to be taken
  into consideration. Using the cost of corruption
  on the pocketbook issues they care about the most
  is critical to showing this reform is actually
  cheaper for them than the current system.
• Cynicism and doubt are also strong hurdles for
  this reform. Efforts must highlight tough
  enforcement to show it will be hard for
  politicians to get around it. Success stories
  such as Arizona and Maine can also help answer
  these concerns.