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

Sat Jun 6 07:51:57 PDT 2015

It’s a good article by Cilizza, the only place he errs is in suggesting there are only two possible (or at least likely) reasons Hillary Clinton might be making Citizens United and money in politics a focus point of her campaign (at least to date), that either her and her pollsters see something that absolutely nobody else does in terms of the issue’s salience, or she really believes in it and wants to elevate it. 

The third possibility, I think, is that she feels the need to appeal to a certain constituency within the Democratic Party during the nomination process in order to prove she’s “one of them,” and talking up campaign finance reform is a must in order to do so. She’d hardly be the first to adopt this strategy in either party, of course – both sides have their foaming-at-the-mouth constituencies on a wide array of issues, and tossing some red-meat rhetoric in their direction is just good politics, at least if smartly done. And in this case, I think she is doing it smartly, the question is whether she keeps the focus in the general (assuming she gets the nomination), which is unlikely given that she would only have so much time to talk about issues people actually care about (or at least vote on), and time spent on campaign finance is time not spent on things people care about (ask President John McCain about just how well “reform” does in a general election as a signature issue).

Bottom line, IMHO it makes total sense for Clinton to talk about this issue right now, just as it makes total sense for her to drop it as quickly as possible if/when she secures the nomination.

Sean Parnell

President, Impact Policy Management, LLC

571-289-1374 (c)

sean at impactpolicymanagement.com

Alexandria, Virginia

From: David Keating [mailto:dkeating at campaignfreedom.org] 
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 6:49 PM
To: Sean Parnell; 'Schultz, David A.'; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: RE: [EL] Curiouser and Curiouser. NY Times Survey on Money in Politics

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] 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150606/a36f7d98/attachment.html>