| The CACEF public opinion poll on campaign finance reform is part of the
Focus , Consensus, Action project. Funded through a grant from the Joyce
Foundation, the project seeks to educate Hoosiers about issues involving money in state
elections and to conduct research which will help the project staff and, ultimately
policymakers, understand the public’s concerns about the increasing cost of political
campaigns and opinions about reform options. Introduction In early 1998 the Citizens Action Coalition Education Fund of Indiana, led by John Cardwell and Julia Vaughn met with the Indiana University Public Opinion Laboratory to develop research to measure citizen interest and potential action in regard to campaign finance reform at the state level. The intent of the research was clear. First, find out if and how citizens in Indiana are concerned about campaign finance at the state level. Second, isolate those factors that might contribute to cynicism and mistrust of government and the electoral process. And, finally, find out what types of actions concerned citizens reported they were willing to take to further campaign finance reform at the state level. In each case an attempt was to be made to both interview the people at a later date to see if their attitudes had changed and to see if there was any parallel between residents of Indiana and national samples measuring things such as mistrust of government, cynicism and citizen participation. Research Plan After several meetings with representatives of the CAC Educational Fund, the staff of the Public Opinion Laboratory developed a questionnaire containing several items to measure those variables deemed relevant to the complex set of attitudes citizens may hold toward state-level campaign finance reform. The final questionnaire, appended as B, was approved and implemented in a state-wide telephone survey in late July of 1998. The sample was drawn to reflect the geographic distribution of the state with gender and age distributions established from current population records. All details on the methodology can be found in Appendix A. The Sample The 810 people interviewed had the following demographic characteristics: 28% had college degrees and another 25% had some college education. Almost 89% were white and 41% said they had children under 18 in their household. The median income was in the $40,000 to $60,000 per year category, about the national level. The following graphs show the age and gender distributions.
Findings Respondents were first asked, "Have you voted in the last two years?" About two-thirds of the residents interviewed indicated they had voted. This is slightly higher than the percentage (62%) of registered voters that voted in the last Presidential election in Indiana. However, it is probably close to the actual participation level given the opportunity to participate in primaries, local elections, etc. over the period asked about in these interviews. Certainly, the fact that one-third of the people we talked to said they definitely did not vote gives us reason to believe the data is a good match to citizens' behavior. When those that reported no voting were asked why they did not vote, a variety of answers were given. However, the plurality cited not being registered (18%), time conflicts on election day (12%), not liking the candidates (9%), and having no reason (8%). Several people cited moving or not wanting to vote as a reason, and a somewhat surprising number said they don’t remember. This pattern is consistent with the U.S. Census Bureau's report in August 1998, based upon the November 1996 Current Population Survey. The next set of questions targeted the degree of trust and efficacy citizens felt toward the government at various levels. The questions were picked because they allowed us to compare Indiana residents' responses to national samples who have been asked similar questions. The first set of questions, outlined in Table One on the next page, dealt with trust in government.
Table One—Trust in Government How much of the time do you think you can trust the federal government in Washington to do what is right?
How much of the time do you think you can trust the state government in Indianapolis to do what is right?
As is obvious, there was considerable similarity between the national samples and Indiana residents' evaluations of different levels of government. It is important to note that trust increased when respondents were asked about Indianapolis government. As shown in many studies, the closer the government, the higher the citizens' announced trust in its actions. The next three items were also picked because of the availability of national samples for comparison. All three of the items focus on the respondents’ feelings of efficacy or power in terms of their impact on the government, in general. Table Two below summarizes the results. Table Two—Efficacy in Government Most elected officials care what people like me think.
Examining each of the items reveals that residents of Indiana show slightly more political "powerlessness" in their expressed attitudes than did the national samples of Americans. This feeling of powerlessness was most pronounced, for Hoosiers, with the third item--with 55% stating they believe that they do not "have much say in what the government does." There is nearly a fifty-fifty split on item one, "Most elected officials care what people like me think." Nearly two-thirds of respondents disagreed with the second statement, "Most political issues don't affect me personally." The importance of these findings for this research will only be clear when we complete the panel aspects of this interviewing (Appendix A, Methodology). The next section of questions asked residents of Indiana about their political activity. Again, there is some national data to which we can compare the reported behavior of Hoosiers. As shown in the table below, over 53% of the people we interviewed reported they had contacted a "...state representative or other public official...." However, only slightly more than 13% of residents of Indiana reported they had "...worked for the election of any political candidate...." in the past four years. About 35% of those interviewed reported they had attended meetings at which political speeches were delivered and almost one in four said they had contributed money to either a "...political party or to a candidate for a political office...." Where possible we have shown national comparable data in Table Three on the next page. Table Three—Participation in Government
The next set of questions focused upon activities regarding state level political races and the influence, or perceived influence, of campaign monies on officials and elections. The first of these questions was: About two-thirds of the money that went to the state legislative campaigns in Indiana came from organizations representing corporations, labor unions, and other organizations. How much does this concern you? About one in three residents of Indiana indicated they were concerned "a great deal" by this fact. Another 41% indicated the matter was a source of some concern. On the other hand, about 15% of Hoosiers reported they had only a little concern, while about 11% reported they were"... not at all concerned..." about this. At least 72% of those interviewed felt at least some concern over this issue (See graph below). This question was a kind of introduction for the two questions that would follow. People stated they are concerned about the amount of money coming from "special interests." The following two questions show that this general concern does translate to specific situations.
After this general question describing the situation, two specific situations regarding campaign contributions were asked for citizen evaluation. Each was chosen because it was both high profile and seemed to be in policy areas that have received much public comment and attention in the state. Also, they can affect the lives of the respondents personally. The first question asked: As you may know, utility companies are one of the major contributors to campaigns. For example, in 1995 and 1996 utility companies gave $579,000 to the campaigns of candidates running for the Indiana State Legislature. Does this concern you? In this case those that reported concern rose to over three-quarters of the residents of Indiana we interviewed (75.6%). On the other hand, over one fifth of all residents we interviewed (22.3%) reported they were not concerned by the expenditures (See graph, below).
Those who were concerned were asked their level of concern, "How much does this concern you?" Over 93% said it was at least of some concern, with nearly 50% saying a "great deal."
Those we interviewed were asked to explain their concern or lack of concern. Appendix C, Marginal Tabulations, shows the wide variety of answers given. For our purposes, at this point in the report, we have reduced them to several "classes" of types of responses. Table Four below shows the general class of responses for those reporting a lack of concern and Table Five shows the responses for those reporting concern.
Table Four—Lack of concern—Utility Companies
Table Five—Concern—Utility Companies
One should note that nearly one-fifth of the respondents reporting no concern mentioned that it does not affect them or it is none of their business. Obviously this is an area that can be targeted for education. Clearly, if citizens of Indiana are concerned about the pattern of expenditures described to them, they feel they are wrong and that they influence officials, presumably in unethical ways. However, one must treat these grouped responses with some degree of caution. A careful reading of detailed responses from the Appendix will serve to bolster, the authors believe, their interpretation that residents of Indiana do not approve of the type of campaign expenditures/contributions described in the situation. Another question in this section describing documented amounts of spending in campaigns asked: The nursing home industry contributed $152,000 in 1995 and 1996 to campaigns of candidates running for the Indiana State Legislature. Does this concern you? As with the previous specific case, a strong majority (64%) reported they were concerned by this fact. On the other hand, 32% of the residents we interviewed reported no concern with this pattern. About 4% of those interviewed refused to answer or could not say how they felt about the situation. (See graph below).
In comparing the two cases, citizens were more concerned about utilities than they were nursing homes. Also, there seems to be ample evidence that the general campaign contribution practice is the source of concern, but it goes up even more according to who is involved in the spending. Almost 60% of those reporting concern by the pattern of spending reported it was a "great deal of concern" to them while an additional 34% reported it was of some concern. Those we interviewed were asked to explain their concern or lack of concern. The appendix of marginal responses shows the wide variety of answers given. For our purposes, at this point in the report, we have reduced them to several "classes" of types of responses. Table Six below shows the general class of responses for those reporting a lack of concern and Table Seven shows those reporting concern. Table Six--Lack of Concern--Nursing Homes
Again we see an apathy and a belief that it does not affect the respondent personally. A belief that the campaign contributions will be beneficial in terms of improving health care and giving the elderly a voice also surfaced. Table Seven--Concern--Nursing Homes
It is important to note that some of those in the miscellaneous category are actually positive statements about input from the elderly. The answers given here and expanded in detail in Appendix C give some indication that many of the citizens we interviewed do not understand the role of money or contributions in election campaigns. The answers in the area of nursing homes/healthcare were much different than those regarding the contributions from utilities. There is much more concern and approbation concerning utility contributions than about nursing home contributions, though a majority of residents of Indiana find they are concerned about the influence produced by both sets of campaign contributions. People were worried about the quality of health care; would it go down? They were concerned for relatives already in homes or who soon might be, as well as themselves. Also, they felt the money should be used to improve the care given, should go back to the elderly. People who indicated that either (or both) circumstances of campaign contributions from utilities or health care industry were of concern to them, were asked if they would be willing to "...bring about change on this issue..." of campaign funding. The results are summarized in Table Eight below. Table Eight-- Actions Willing to Take
As can be seen, there was considerable willingness to act, among those concerned by the pattern of expenditures for political action -- especially voting, communication type activities such as signing petitions and writing letters; and attendance at meetings. This suggests that residents of Indiana who are made aware of the current campaign contribution practices are subject to political activation. However, it remains to be seen what motivation may be necessary to actually elicit such actions. Respondents were also given the opportunity to tell us any other activities, that were not mentioned, in which they would participate. Most respondents said "none," however 15 people or 2.2% said they would utilize persuasion or conversation and an additional 12 people or 1.8% said they would do whatever it takes. Eleven or 1.6% of respondents said they would do something else, but they did not know what. The next series of questions consisted of a set of statements that dealt with basic campaign finance reforms. These reforms involved limits on contributions made by different groups--political action committees, individuals, labor unions and corporations. Table Nine below summarizes their answers. Table Nine-- Favor or Oppose Campaign Finance Reforms
Clearly, residents of Indiana see a need, and they favor, restrictions on campaign funding. They are especially concerned about corporate contributions, with 72.2% favoring limitations; and labor union contributions, with 67.9% favoring limitations on contributions to candidates. Respondents were least concerned with limiting political action committees' contributions. Because citizens feel this strongly about campaign finance in the state, and given the aforementioned tendency to say they would be motivated to vote in light of these campaign practices, it is important to know if they support or oppose candidates who support campaign finance reform. The question asked was direct. Would you be more or less likely to vote for a candidate for the state legislature if that person voted for campaign finance reform? The results are dramatic. Almost two thirds of residents of Indiana (65.4%) reported they would be more likely to vote for a candidate that supported campaign finance reform. Only about one in ten (10.1%) reported they would be less likely to vote for a candidate with such a record (See graph on the next page). This compares to national data that shows that 31% of voters said they would be more willing to vote for a candidate that supported national campaign finance reform in a congressional election. Hoosiers seem much more likely to show such a vote will impact their electoral choices than is true at the national level. Of course, in this case we asked specifically about the legislative, rather than Congressional, level. It may be that residents of Indiana are far more concerned about the nearby, state, government then they are concerned about national matters. This would follow the pattern of many other issues, especially education and taxes. Hoosiers have shown more local interest than national interest in all these matters.
To measure their overall assessment of campaign finance practices in Indiana we used a direct question. In general, which of the following statements best represents what you feel about the way state campaigns are financed? The responses are shown in Table below. Table Ten-- How Feel About Campaign Financing
Sixty percent of the residents of the state that want at least MAJOR changes in current practices regarding state campaigns and how they are financed. Overall a total of 89% of Indiana residents believe there needs to be at least minor changes. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of two subjects involving new campaign finance laws. These questions were set up as a dichotomy to see if people would assign the same importance to both. The first question asked: How important is it to you that new campaign finance laws protect the freedom of the individual to support political candidates and parties financially? The vast majority answered that such protection was very (38.8%) or somewhat (48.5%) important. Only 10.4% of those interviewed said that individual freedoms were unimportant. Respondents were next asked: How important is it to you that new campaign finance laws protect the Legislative branch of government from excessive influence by campaign contributors? Almost six in ten Hoosiers (59.9%) responded it was very important and another 31.1% said it was "somewhat important." Thus, respondents assigned more importance to protecting the legislative branch of government from influence than with protecting individual freedom. There were very few people -- 6.3% -- interviewed who said such action was not important to them. This is confirmed when you note that if asked to compare which is the biggest influence on legislators in Indiana -- interests of the state or contributor's pressure -- more than 66% say it is contributions as opposed to 26% that say it is the interest of the state that legislators "listen to in their law-making duties." Thus, it is no surprise when we find that 60.4% of those interviewed say that elections are for sale as opposed to 33% that say the best candidate wins. Overall, these results show that residents of Indiana are concerned about the pattern of campaign financing in the state and a surprising number, by national standards, are ready to take action to try to rectify the situation. Respondents were given the opportunity to add anything they would like. Nearly 88% did not answer. The top response was a general mistrust and cynicism of government. Summary
Go to Campaign Finance Issues Index
| CAC Home Page
| Table of Contents | Issues Index |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
