Poll: Americans dissatisfied with campaign finance system
These days, it鈥檚 hard to get a Democrat and a Republican to agree on almost any issue. But if there鈥檚 place they might find common ground, it鈥檚 campaign finance.
Majority of Americans are deeply dissatisfied with how political campaigns are financed today, but few expect to see real reforms in the near future, has found. 聽
The findings, released Tuesday, reveal a nation increasingly alienated from its representatives, their elite supporters, and the electoral process 鈥� a shift that occurred as a series of Supreme Court decisions, most notably the , expanded the role and influence of wealthy donors in political campaigns, .
At the same time, the poll shows that the public, regardless of party affiliation, is united in its support for overhauling the current campaign financing system: About 85 percent of participants said the system either needed 鈥渇undamental changes鈥� or had to be completely rebuilt, according to the survey.
鈥淚 think too much money is spent on campaigns, and it ends up being lopsided,鈥� Sonja Rhodes, a retired secretary and a Republican from Washington state, told the Times. 鈥淭hey should pass a bill and instead of billions of dollars, spending should be limited to $10 million or so.鈥�
Nearly 80 percent also favored limiting the amount of money an individual can donate to a campaign, and 84 percent polled said that money has too much influence in political campaigns today.
None of this is likely to come as a surprise. There鈥檚 a reason that, , 鈥淸v]owing to fix the country鈥檚 campaign finance system is a perennial campaign trail promise, especially for Democrats.鈥�
There鈥檚 one other thing that majority of Americans agree on, according to the Times/CBS poll: Pessimism regarding reform.
It鈥檚 a view that comes hand-in-hand with the perceptions that elected officials lack the willingness to 鈥渇ight the system they inhabit,鈥� and that, next to issues like the economy, jobs, and the deficit, campaign finance is not a critical concern, the Times reported.
For instance, Hillary Clinton, shortly after announcing her candidacy,聽聽to make campaign finance reform a central part of her platform, according to the Washington Post.
Two weeks later,聽聽that Ms. Clinton would be courting donors for a 鈥渟uper PAC,鈥� 鈥渢he first time a Democratic presidential candidate has fully embraced these independent groups that can accept unlimited checks from big donors and are already playing a major role in the 2016 race.鈥�
, political reporter Chris Cillizza wrote that Clinton would likely defend her actions by giving a version of what he called 鈥渢he unilateral disarmament case鈥�:
The only way to bring about real campaign finance reform is for me [Clinton] to get elected president. The only way for me to get elected president is to ensure a close-to-fair financial fight. The only way to ensure a close-to-fair financial fight is to help the super PAC raise money.
Still, the beginnings of a blueprint to reform may already exist, Yale Law School professors Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres .
Earlier this month, the US Supreme Court ruled in a Florida case involving judicial elections, upholding the state鈥檚 decision to ban candidates from personally soliciting funds. Chief Justice John Roberts, , noted: 鈥淸T]he personal involvement of the candidate in the solicitation creates the public appearance that the candidate will remember who says yes, and who says no.鈥�
Political leaders embracing a similar ban could represent the start of real change, Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Ayres wrote.
鈥淔ar more useful are concrete steps 鈥� like a ban on personal solicitations 鈥� that might 鈥� demonstrate to skeptical constituents that that they are serious about their real job: crafting serious solutions to the critical problems of the 21st century,鈥� they wrote.
