[EL] Push Polling

[David Adamany]

There's always a danger in attributing views to others.   My comment was just that I would prefer a poll far less biased than Brad's.   I have no comment about any other "push polls," since I rarely read polls of any kind.  Each semester i devote some time in my freshman political science class to commenting about the unreliability of most polls, so they aren't too easily misled.   Given Brad's stated purpose, I won't use his an an example.   David



David Adamany
Laura Carnell Professor of Law
and Political Science, and
Chancellor
1810 Liacouras Walk, Ste 330
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122
(215) 204-9278

________________________________
From: Smith, Brad [BSmith at law.capital.edu]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 1:00 PM
To: Trevor Potter
Cc: David Adamany; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Push Polling

My point was that most reporting amounts to a one-sided push poll. David, as I read him, thinks it should be more one-sided still.

Brad

Sent from my iPhone

On May 2, 2013, at 12:18 PM, "Trevor Potter" <tpotter at capdale.com<mailto:tpotter at capdale.com>> wrote:

I’m not clear if Brad disputes any of the factual clarifications made by David….(unlike the statements made in the SC push poll…)

Trevor Potter

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of David Adamany
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 5:59 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] Push Polling


Although I tend to see issues differently than Brad Smith, I attentively read his posts because he almost always presents a point of view quite different from mine and one that I want my students to know about.  I'm not sure his proposed push poll is up to his usual standards, and I offer a rare proposal for revision of one of Brad's posts, which I have reprinted below:


I'm thinking of doing my own push poll on money in politics. It will go something like this:

- What would you think of the FEC if I told you it "regularly deadlocks" on many of the most important issues it faces.  [in fact, even at current record levels, it deadlocks relatively infrequently, and most "deadlocks" actually decide the issue involved)].

- Would you be more inclined to support new restrictions on campaign finance and new disclosure rules if I told you that the political system was being influenced by $350,000,000 of [swamped with] dark money? (In fact, "dark money" - no push nomenclature there - amounts to less than 5% of 2012 spending in federal races).

- What would you think if I told you that the FEC can't function because all of the commissioners' terms have expired and the commission regularly divides with three Democratic appointees voting on one side of issues and three Republican appointees voting on the other side.? (in fact, commissioners can remain and retain full powers after the expiration of their terms).

- Would you be more likely to support SEC mandating disclosure of corporate trade association dues if I told you that a minority of shareholders strongly objected to using their share of corporate funds to support candidates they oppose or even detest?  [shareholders wanted such information]? (in fact, in 12 shareholder votes this proxy season, disclosure is 0-12, with an average vote less than 20%.).

- Do you support sham political advocacy?

- Would you be more or less inclined to support more disclosure laws if I told you that the use of "shell" corporations who spend large amounts of money to influence elections and do not disclose the money they receive from wealthy individuals and from corporations who contribute to those  corporations to conceal their identities?  [to hide the sources of political funding was now a common tactic? (in fact, there is no evidence it is a common tactic)].


With all due respect.




David Adamany
Laura Carnell Professor of Law
and Political Science, and
Chancellor
1810 Liacouras Walk, Ste 330
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122
(215) 204-9278


<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein. This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure, copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document. <-->
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130502/eb7a995c/attachment.html>