Yes, voters do care about secret cash funding elections (84 percent say they have a "right to know")

[kpete]

Source: The Plum Line

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/final%20disclosure%20polling%20memo%20.pdf


Yes, voters do care about secret cash funding elections!

It has become an article of faith among certain Beltway inside-game commentators that there's no way the Dem attack on secret money funding elections could ever have a prayer of working. Surely the issue is too esoteric, too process-y, and too removed from voter concerns about the economy to resonate.

But a new poll commissioned by MoveOn, and done by the respected non-partisan firm Survey USA, strongly suggests that the issue may indeed matter a good deal to voters after all.

The poll finds that two thirds of registered voters, or 66 percent, are aware that outside groups are behind some of the ads they're seeing. This makes sense, since the issue has dominated the media amid the battle over the huge ad onslaught against Dems funded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove's groups.

What's more, an overwhelming 84 percent say they have a "right to know" who's bankrolling the ads. And crucially, the poll also found that the issue is resonant when linked to the economy. A majority, 53 percent, are less likely to think a candidate who is backed by "anonymous groups" can be trusted to "improve economic conditions" for them or their families. People don't believe these groups are looking out for their interests.

Read more: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/yes_voters_do_care_about.html

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[notesdev]

2. A smart candidate would capitalize on this

run ads showing shadowy figures controlling puppet strings on their opponents... keep hammering "Why don't they want you to know who is behind them?" That's a tactic that can appeal to every voter, and IMO it would be quite effective if anyone actually tried it. And also it's one of the few ways to put out a negative ad that doesn't risk making the campaign that produced it look bad.

[OnyxCollie]

3. Democratic leaders quoting Dick Cheney

"So?"

[closeupready]

4. You hear it all the time - the American people know it for what it is, legalized bribery.

They want clean government, not crooks who are for sale to the highest bidder. Because that's dishonest and corrupt.

That these DC insiders believe they have pulled the wool over the eyes of outside observers speaks volumes about how thoroughly corrupt DC is - and the rest of the nation is NOT.

And actually, this is a big part of why the Tea Party has managed to make gains this year.

[Mz Pip]

5. It's important to me.

We have endless propositions in CA and it is helpful to know who's supporting them and who's opposing them since you practically need to be a lawyer to decipher the legalese in the text.

[Hekate]

6. I'm to the point that unless there's a rock-solid reason to vote for, I vote no on all of them

The proposition system has started doing much more harm than good, and combined with term limits in Sacramento, means that average voters are trying to figure out law and budget items that should be the job of those we elect.

I'm voting in favor of the marijuana proposition as a message to the "war on drugs" overlords; I'll read League of Women Voters' guides and such, but my inclination is to just say no to all the rest.

Hekate

[Mz Pip]

9. I'll probably vote yes

on 24 & 25. all the progressive groups have come out in favor of these two. 24 is to eliminate corporate tax loopholes and 25 is to change the 2/3 majority rule. 25 doesn't go far enough, but it's a start.

[Hekate]

7. KnR

[Bragi]

8. Too bad public opinion doesn't matter /nt