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

Sat Jun 6 06:02:25 PDT 2015

Two things.

1. The poll did ask about the First Amendment. "Do you consider money given
to political candidates to be a form of free speech protected by the First
Amendment to the Constitution or not?" 54% answered "no, not free speech."

2. Every time there is new evidence to the contrary Chris Cillizza writes
the same blog post. I think he's up to 4-5 at this point. New evidence
contradicting his position is pretty common.

I recommend you read Rep. Sarbanes' interview with Greg Sargent
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/06/03/how-democrats-can-make-voters-care-about-big-money-in-politics/>
about
the poll and how Americans feel about this issue. Charlie Pierce's "Here's
Some Stupid for Lunch
<http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a35459/campaign-finance-reform/>"
post about Cillizza is also good.

*Tyler Creighton* | tyler at rethinkmedia.org  |  Media Associate
ReThink Media <http://rethinkmedia.org> | (925) 548-2189 mobile
@ReThinkDemocrcy <https://twitter.com/rethinkdemocrcy> | @ReThink_Media
<https://twitter.com/rethink_media> | @TylerCreighton
<http://www.twitter.com/tylercreighton>

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 6:48 PM, David Keating <dkeating at campaignfreedom.org>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> *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
>
> Alexandria, Virginia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <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
> *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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> 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/20150606/8232fb8f/attachment.html>