[EL] Curiouser and Curiouser. NY Times Survey on Money in Politics

[David Keating]

You put too much weight on a poll that wasn’t constructed all that well to measure public opinion on a complex issue.  Yes, the public has a knee jerk reaction to money in politics.  Nothing new. Support for radical restrictions, if it really exists, is a mile wide and an inch deep.  The public also loves the First Amendment, but the Times didn’t ask about that.

This is not just wishful thinking on my part.  Buried (of course, it’s the Times), but revealed by CBS, was the fact that "Less than one percent volunteer campaign fundraising as the most important issue facing the country."  That was on an open end question, where all responses are volunteered.

Probably another poll could also commend a flag-burning amendment or for the court to uphold such an anti-burning law, but I’d hope you wouldn’t urge its passage or a reversal of previous rulings to prevent “contempt of the public.”

I recommend you read Chris Cilizza’s Washington Post column, “Can we please stop acting like campaign finance is a major voting issue?<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/02/can-we-stop-acting-like-campaign-finance-is-a-major-voting-issue/>” if you want to understand how the public really feels about the issue.

David
_________________________________________________
David Keating | President | Center for Competitive Politics
124 S. West Street, Suite 201 | Alexandria, VA 22314
703-894-6799 (direct) | 703-894-6800 | 703-894-6811 Fax
www.campaignfreedom.org<http://www.campaignfreedom.org>

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Sean Parnell
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 3:37 PM
To: 'Schultz, David A.'; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Curiouser and Curiouser. NY Times Survey on Money in Politics

Am I understanding correctly that your position, David, is that holding a position out of step with a substantial majority of the public = contempt for the public? Is that limited to the Supreme Court, or others as well?

If limited to the Supreme Court, is it your position that the Supreme Court is engaging in contempt for the public whenever they issue a decision at odds with some supermajority of the public? What is the numerical threshold between contempt by the court and simply upholding the law/Constitution against the majority’s wishes? 80%? 70% 50% + 1?


Sean Parnell
President, Impact Policy Management, LLC
571-289-1374 (c)
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com<mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
Alexandria, Virginia





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 Schultz, David A.
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 1:46 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] Curiouser and Curiouser. NY Times Survey on Money in Politics

Hi All:

I found the silence deafening on this listserv regarding the June 2-3, 2015 NY Times survey finding that overall 84% of the American public believes money has too much of a role in American politics and that majorities (or near majority with Republicans) do not believe that money given to candidates is a form of protected speech.  Assuming this survey is accurate (and its results are consistent with one I had done in MN years ago) then the Roberts Court and views expressed by several on this listserv are clearly at odds and out of touch with what the majority of Americans believe.

Now of course counter-majoritarianism is not always wrong.  Unpopular speech should be permitted despite what majorities believe.  But what is going on here is not about regulating content or viewpoint or suppressing unpopular groups or oppressing discrete and insular minorities.  What we seen here is an indication of the public describing how they think the American politics process should operate and such views do deserve significant deference.  I also read the poll as rejecting what many on this listserv are asserting, i.e., conflating money as a perfect legitimate way to buy consumer with the legitimate way to allocate political power and influence.  It is also a conflating the legitimate means or process of how a democracy should operate with how it does operate, or otherwise confusing money as a medium of economic exchange with that of seeing it as a permissible means of political exchange.


No responses needed or expected to my post.  Just curiouser and curiouser about positions taken by the Court that really display contempt of the American public.

--
David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
Department of Political Science
1536 Hewitt Ave
MS B 1805
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858 (voice)
651.523.3170 (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
My latest book:  Election Law and Democratic Theory, Ashgate Publishing
http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754675433
FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150605/61cf2978/attachment.html>