[EL] Push Polling

[Mark Schmitt]

I'm sure there's little point in engaging, but one point should be 
clarified: A "push poll" is not a poll. A push poll is a way of 
insinuating a totally false statement into the electorate in the guise 
of a poll. The entity taking the poll has no interest in the results -- 
the only point is to insert the lie into the bloodstream. And Trevor is 
of course quite familiar with this tactic, because it was most famously 
used against his candidate in 2000 in the same state.

But what you've created, Brad, is a hypothetical real poll in which the 
statements are not totally false, but if they were used in a real poll 
about campaign finance, they might well be considered somewhat leading. 
I know a little bit about polling, and if someone did a poll with those 
questions, I wouldn't have confidence in the results -- although they 
might help identify effective messages. But so what? There's no actual 
poll that used those questions. So there's not really a point here. If 
there's some piece of journalism that you think presented the issues in 
a misleading way, you should identify it.


------ Original Message ------
From: "Trevor Potter" <tpotter at capdale.com>
To: "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Sent: 5/2/2013 3:32:20 PM
Subject: Re: [EL] Push Polling
>That is what I expected…
>
>
>
>From: Smith, Brad [mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu]
>Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 2:30 PM
>To: Trevor Potter
>Cc: David Adamany; law-election at uci.edu
>Subject: RE: [EL] Push Polling
>
>
>
>LOL.
>
>
>
>Bradley A. Smith
>
>Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
>
>   Professor of Law
>
>Capital University Law School
>
>303 East Broad Street
>
>Columbus, OH 43215
>
>(614) 236-6317
>
>bsmith at law.capital.edu
>
>http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp
>
>
>
>From: Trevor Potter [mailto:tpotter at capdale.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 2:18 PM
>To: Smith, Brad
>Cc: David Adamany; law-election at uci.edu
>Subject: Re: [EL] Push Polling
>
>
>
>To keep that horse up and going, let me restate my question in thus 
>thread. David amplified your statements, and you said his additions 
>made the statements even more extreme. Why? What was incorrect about 
>David's clarifying statements about the FEC?
>
>Trevor Potter
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>On May 2, 2013, at 2:13 PM, "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu> 
>wrote:
>
>>Beating a dead horse, let me try this again. What follows are a series 
>>of statements, put into push poll format, that are regularly made in 
>>the press:
>>
>>
>>
>>- What would you think of the FEC if I told you it 
>>"regularly/frequently deadlocks."
>>
>>
>>
>>- 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 swamped with dark money?
>>
>>
>>
>>- What would you think if I told you that the FEC can't function 
>>because all of the commissioners' terms have expired?
>>
>>
>>
>>- Would you be more likely to support SEC mandating disclosure of 
>>corporate trade association dues if I told you that shareholders 
>>wanted such information?
>>
>>
>>
>>- 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 to hide the sources 
>>of political funding was now a common tactic?
>>
>>
>>
>>These and similar statements, to me, are the “push poll” that goes on 
>>every day in the press. All of these statements strike me as rather 
>>obviously biased. For example:
>>
>>
>>
>>-          I doubt that most people would think that something under 
>>20% of votes amounted to “frequently” or even “regularly.” You can 
>>argue that, of course, because those words do not have some fixed 
>>minimum, but under 20% is not what what the terms conjure up for most 
>>people. Rarely does the press actually cite numbers. Moreover, the 
>>very phrase “deadlocks” suggests that no decision was made, when in 
>>fact in most cases it does amount to a decision not to go forward, 
>>which decides the issue. Note also that this same language was used 
>>even when the rate of “deadlocks” was 1 to 3%, as it has been for most 
>>of the Commission’s history (see e.g. Fred Wertheimers “No Bark/No 
>>Bite” from 2001, or Brooks Jackson’s “Broken Promise” from the 1980s), 
>>when I think the use of “regularly” or “frequently” is pretty much 
>>inexcusable by any standard.
>>
>>
>>
>>-          Saying the system is “swamped with dark money” offers up a 
>>rather loaded description, particularly since context ($350 million – 
>>a number often given – is under 5% of spending – a number almost never 
>>given) is typically omitted. $350 million, to the average 
>>viewer/reader, sounds like a lot. Less than five percent? Meh. My 
>>complaint is not with “reformers” who use numbers that excite people 
>>to their argument, but with a press that typically adopts that lingo.
>>
>>-          Suggesting that shareholders are demanding public release 
>>of trade association dues payments and much charitable giving, plus 
>>direct political spending, without any definition of what that means, 
>>is misleading. Of course some shareholders are demanding that, so the 
>>statement is literally true, as is the statement that “Americans are 
>>demanding that campaign finance contribution limits be repealed.” Both 
>>are demonstrably misleading in light of how people actually vote when 
>>given a chane. But only the former statement is routinely repeated in 
>>the press, despite actual shareholder votes going consistently and 
>>overwhelmingly against such disclosure.
>>
>>
>>
>>-          Suggesting, as Senator Whitehouse did in a recent hearing 
>>and certain “reform” advocates have regularly suggested, that the use 
>>of “shell corporations” is “common,” when there is no evidence of that 
>>at all, unless one uses the rather tendentious argument that a handful 
>>of isolated incidences over three years – literally a handful, 
>>countable on 5 fingers – is “common” amounts to a “push poll” of 
>>stating bias as fact.
>>
>>
>>
>>-          Referring to speech as “sham” issue advocacy – does this 
>>really need explanation?
>>
>>
>>
>>I think this is a pretty simple point, and I would think “reform” 
>>advocates would be proud of how good a job they have done in setting 
>>the language of the debate. If you really want to contest this, be my 
>>guess, but do me a favor – first have your research assistant do a 
>>Lexis/Westlaw search for use of the $350 million figure; then have 
>>them do it for the 5 percent figure.
>>
>>
>>
>>Bradley A. Smith
>>
>>Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
>>
>>   Professor of Law
>>
>>Capital University Law School
>>
>>303 East Broad Street
>>
>>Columbus, OH 43215
>>
>>(614) 236-6317
>>
>>bsmith at law.capital.edu
>>
>>http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp
>>
>>
>>
>>From: David Adamany [mailto:adamany at temple.edu]
>>Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 1:12 PM
>>To: Smith, Brad; Trevor Potter
>>Cc:law-election at uci.edu
>>Subject: RE: [EL] Push Polling
>>
>>
>>
>>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> 
>>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] On Behalf Of 
>>>David Adamany
>>>Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 5:59 PM
>>>To: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
>>>http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>
><- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> 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. <-->
>
>
><- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> 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. <-->
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130503/85b2e05e/attachment.html>