WaPo’s Misleading Campaign Finance Poll
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll claims that a large majority of Americans in both parties oppose the Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United ruling that loosened some of the rules in campaign finance law. The February 17th Dan Eggen WaPo story reports that “Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court’s Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent ‘strongly’ opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.”
But a quick look at the actual poll questions shows that the Post misrepresented the Court’s actual ruling. The researchers asked, “Do you support or oppose the ruling that says corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections?” Not surprisingly, 80 percent of responders said “No.” Likewise, 72 percent of responders agreed that they would “support…an effort by Congress to reinstate limits on corporate and union spending on election campaigns.”
But as Andrew Odell of the Heritage Foundation explains, “[a] corporation desiring to contribute directly to political candidates cannot do so except through a political action committee that is funded by voluntary contributions from corporate management in compliance with an extensive regulatory scheme that the Court left untouched.” Unfortunately, the many news outlets that reported on the case neglected to explain this clear distinction.
With questions that unrepresentative of the law, can you really blame the responders? Most were not attorneys or scholars of constitutional law, but casual observers of news and politics, so when a question is framed in that manner, it is hardly surprising that 80 percent would answer in the way they did.
Tags: campaign finance, Citizens United, Dan Eggen, First Amendment, Washington Post
Bruce said:
Feb 19, 10 at 7:32 pm“But as Andrew Odell of the Heritage Foundation explains, “[a] corporation desiring to contribute directly to political candidates cannot do so except through a political action committee that is funded by voluntary contributions from corporate management in compliance with an extensive regulatory scheme that the Court left untouched.” Unfortunately, the many news outlets that reported on the case neglected to explain this clear distinction.”
This statement is not correct in view of the Supreme Court decision. PAC’s are the current law, and they weren’t at issue. The court held that corporations don’t need PACS anymore to contribute to candidates…to limit it to PACs is a violation of free speech.’
Your point, nevertheless, is still correct that the pole is meaningless and misleading with misleading questions.
How about this pol question: Why should gigantic media for profit corporations be allowed to support candidates within 30 days of an election, while all other for profit corporations can’t?
Is freedom of the press any more important than freedom of speech?
Do you think two or more people who associate in any form, whether in corporate or other, should lose their free speech rights?
Do you belong to AARP, Greenpeace, or any other corporate group that lobbies for you?
The court held that free speech is protected regardless of whether one person says it, or two people say it, no matter what form the two people have associated…do you agree with this?
Do you think the constitution and Bill of Rights protected Free speech only for non rich people? What is non rich?
Do you think it should make any difference whether a corporation supports a candidate on billboards, pamphlets, which were legal….or that the media should make some difference? (radio and tv were somehow made illegal, not other media…whats that about?)
If you think corporations should not be allowed to speak on politics within thirty days before an election…just how do you as a poor citizen expect to get your word out?
Do you think corporations all take just one side of any issue?
Do you see anything fair about for profit media corporations like Newsweek and Time being the only corporations allowed to support candidates, flooding the country with biased articles and endorsements just before the election?
Why do you assume a corporation will spend money offending half the country
finally….just what the hell are you afraid of so much that you have to silence any group of individuals? Is it because you don’t like that group…don’t like corporations?