I am not as pessimistic as most, actually. But I’m almost always wrong in my optimism, so there’s that.
Polls show that people get it that money in politics is corrosive and out of control. 84% overall say money has too much influence in politics (80% Rs, 90% Ds and 84% Is), which is, as I’ve said before you don’t get 84% agreement in America on anything – ice cream probably only gets 75%.
But as usual, inside the numbers is interesting:
55% say the candidates promote the policies of the people who donate to them most of the time. Really? Only 55%? Only MOST of the time? How about just about ALL the time and especially when it’s important.
85% say we need AT LEAST fundamental change, but only 39% think we’ll get it and for good reason. A large number of the Republican and Independent voters who are on the right side of this issue, will NEVER vote for the party that they agree with on this issue. Unless this issue becomes as large in the 2016 cycle as it ought to be (and that’s up to the Dems to make it so), those 58% pessimistic people will be right, again! I’m convinced that this issue is the ONE issue that controls all the others. Get 50% of the public convinced of that and we might get somewhere.
But this one has me scratching my head. We already see an inexplicable discrepancy between the 85% that say there’s a big problem and 77% say money should be limited. Okay, that 8% is just weird. The 15% that believes things are fine jumps to 21% believe it should be allowed. So yes, a certain small number of people believe it’s a big problem that needs to be reformed, but should be allowed.
Then we ask about that key issue that decided Citizen’s United – are these donations free speech and protected by the Constitution and all of a sudden you have 41% saying it’s free speech and just 54% saying it isn’t. That’s over 20% of those polled saying, again, that money in politics is a huge problem, and should be limited, BUT it’s free speech, BUT ultimately we should regulate it. I shake my head hard. But ultimately, as long as they go along with the regulation maybe it’s a distinction without a difference. Or a difference without a distinction. Whatever.