There's your problem, political edition
One of my favorite time-wasting/good-for-background-noise shows on cable is Mythbusters, mainly for the show's propensity to gratuitously blow stuff up.
Among the best tag lines from the show comes when the two hosts approach a damaged apparatus (usually one subjected to the aforementioned gratuitous explosion) and notes, "Well, there's your problem."
It's a slightly more succinct way to say, "Wow, there's no question why this won't work anymore and I really don't need to explain it because the evidence is right there in front of your face."
I had one of those moments this morning, although, sadly, it didn't involve an explosion.
The latest Elon Poll asked a question reported deep down in its data sheet:
"Would you say that campaign contributions to state lawmakers influence their legislative activities [a lot, some, not much, or not at all]?"
Now, I know what the response would be if you asked your average journalists. But these results come from a sample of folks roughly split on public financing of elections and who, as much as ever happens in a poll, seem to reflect the general population of the state:
NOT AT ALL 4.9NOT MUCH 5.3
SOME 43.0
A LOT 40.9
DON T KNOW (v) 5.4
REFUSED (v) .4
Simply put: Well over 80 percent of those surveyed believe campaign contributions in some way, shape or form influence how state legislators go about making the laws of North Carolina.
I've written dozens of stories over the years about campaign donations and they inevitably contain some quote from a politician or their spokesman that says, "Well, sure, I get money from X industry, but they just must like where I stand." In fact, you can find just such a quote regarding donations on the federal level in the Charlotte Observer's story about tobacco industry donations to Richard Burr:
Burr spokesman Chris Walker says the campaign donations don't influence Burr's policy agenda."It's not something that comes into any equations here," Walker said. "It doesn't really affect what we're doing legislatively."
Let's be clear: this is a Republican/Democrat thing. You can write that same kind of story for just about any politician of any influence at the local, state or national level.
Even if it's true the policy position came first, even if it's true that a few thousand bucks isn't so much money in the grand scheme of fundraising, and even if it's true the money chased the policy position and not the other way around, the Elon Poll says 80 percent of the people don't believe you.
Well, there's your problem.
It does not matter if the campaign finance system is pure as the driven snow. The average citizen is unwilling to make the leap of logic to say; sure, you might get thousands of dollars from a particular interest but you, Mr. or Ms. Legislator, but it doesn’t influence your choices at all.
If you accept the poll results, there are a couple of relevant questions:
- * Is there a fix?
- * If so, what is it?
The same Elon Poll says folks are split on the idea of public financing for campaigns. The idea of putting tax dollars into campaigns with whose sentiments you might disagree sits poorly with a lot of folks.
So what's your solution? (Or should we take the results of the poll to mean that people believe money influences politics but they're okay with that?) The comment link is open for opining.
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Instead of forcing everyone fund campaigns, why not alter the contribution restrictions to individuals only (no groups of any sort, be it businesses, PACs, whatever - that way the individuals have nothing to hide behind), with no limits but immediate public disclosure, so that donors have to face public scrutiny?
Also, regarding your question "should we take the results of the poll to mean that people believe money influences politics but they're okay with that?" I think people are smart enough to realize that money influences everything. This 'fix' of public financing would give the news media even greater power, and it is unlikely any candidate would be able to overcome both their campaign opponent and negative media coverage in this kind of system.
Posted on March 23, 2009 1:36 PM
Just so I know, have the "news media" displayed our great a mighty power by tanking stock prices across the industry or instituting layoffs in newsrooms across the country? For an industry that's supposedly pulling the strings, we don't seem to be doing too well. (And, to date, no bailout. WTF?)
As to your other point about restricting contributions to individuals, there are plenty of folks who would say that's a jim dandy of an idea. Businesses are already forbidden from giving. PACs have to obey the same contribution limits to candidates as individuals do, but they're allowed to do "independent expenditures," which is where a lot of the nastiness from the past few campaign cycles have come from.
Getting rid of those independent ads (like the DSCC's rocking chair ads) has proven difficult because of free speech rulings by the courts.
Posted on March 23, 2009 1:45 PM
Mark, As director of the Center for Voter education, an organization dedicated to improving elections, I don’t think it comes as a surprise that I do indeed think there is a way to fix the problem of perceived corruption in politics. Given our history on the issue, I also don’t think its surprising that I feel strongly that public financing is part of that solution.
What may come as a surprise is that I do not think public financing is a panacea. The first step in restoring confidence in our elected officials is getting rid of this notion that money buys special treatment. This is where public financing is an excellent tool. By all of us investing in a program that offers an alternative to special interest driven campaigns, we can be confident that campaign cash does not unduly influence our elected officials. But the second step in restoring the public trust doesn’t come from a public program. It comes from all of us paying close attention to our government. We need to be informed on the decisions that are happening in Raleigh and offer criticism when warranted, but also praise when things go well.
In short, public financing can radically diminish the influence of special interest. But if we, the represented, don’t fill that vacuum with public interest, then we are only marginally better off.
Posted on March 23, 2009 1:59 PM
"Just so I know, have the "news media" displayed our great a mighty power by tanking stock prices across the industry or instituting layoffs in newsrooms across the country? For an industry that's supposedly pulling the strings, we don't seem to be doing too well."
I hope that that was a conscious attempt at sounding silly. In case you misread, I said "greater" - as in, it would increase substantially. However, if you think that news media doesn't currently have great influence, then I don't think I can help you.
"Pulling the strings," no. Running interference for a candidate or party, very often yes. And that's something that campaigns have to use their resources to deal with, and with this idea of imposed limits, having to deal with an opponent that's on equal footing cash-wise AND a hostile media setting the narrative would be campaign death.
But, so long as independent groups are allowed to run attack ads, cash has no less an influence on these campaigns. So what's the point? Wouldn't folks just end up putting the money into the independent groups instead of directly into the campaigns?
Posted on March 23, 2009 3:22 PM
MitchellC: Yes, that was sarcasm.
As far as the independent ads go, smarter minds than mine have been stumped by the question. It was one of the reasons I brought it up.
As far as your thought about running interference goes, let me crank down the parameters a bit. The term "the media" is so broad as to be meaningless. No one would argue that the life and interests of a mid-sized daily newspaper reporter have much in common with the folks who run Fox News or CNN.
But as someone who works in the print media and knows a bit about folks who work in regional political reporting (print and broadcast) I will say the following:
* The idea of a news organization having a political agenda seems pretty silly to me. In fact, applying the word "organization" to any business that owns a news room seems a bit far fetched. Simply put, we have neither the time nor inclination to establish and promote preferences.
* Yes, newspapers have editorial pages that express opinions and make endorsements. In the vast majority of modern newsrooms, those departments are separate from the news reporting side of the operation and simply don't hold authority over reporters.
* In more than a dozen years in the business, I've never, ever been asked to alter a story to favor one political ideology over another. It just doesn't happen inside a professional newsroom.
* I read you as coming from the political right, but could be wrong. Either was, I would say that both liberals and conservatives have taken equal exception to my reporting over the years. I file this under, "As long as you're hacking everyone off, you're doing your job."
* I will not pretend that every candidate has an equal shot to get their stories told. Those who are better funded, well known or who have other practical advantages -especially in primaries- get more ink. Is it fair? No. But the reality is not everyone stands an equal chance of getting elected.
So yes, I dispute the idea the "news media," at least the part of the definition that applies to myself and most of my colleagues, seeks to influence elections in the way you are suggesting.
Posted on March 23, 2009 3:47 PM
Hey Mark,
I think that most, but certainly not all, reporters try to cover candidates fairly; but, that occasional editorial comment in a news story can be a killer. Edited comments from candidates on issues that seem more important to the interviewer than to the candidate can have lots of influence on an audience because the candidate is not always heard on his own issues and suggested solutions.
One of the problems is that better-known candidates and incumbents seem to get a lot more coverage than new or lesser-known candidates.
I guess becoming better known is where the money comes in. Billboards, mailings, telephone polls, etc cost lots of money.
It seems to be especially that way in television coverage.
I find it hard to believe a well-known actor or athlete has a better grasp of politics than a not-so-well-known lawyer or school teacher, or housewife.
Face recognition seems to equate with intellectual ability in lots of media reporting.
And, of course, being a real dummy gets some folks lots of coverage. But that's another story.
I know that you know all of the above; but, sometimes I just have to chirp up with my two cents worth.
Keep up the good reporting and commenting.
Posted on March 25, 2009 2:43 PM