Senate battleground survey: Battling unlimited money … bg graphs... · Senate battleground survey: Battling unlimited money to empower regular citizens helps Democrats ... The Democracy

Senate battleground survey:

Battling unlimited money to empower regular citizens

helps Democrats

July 24, 2014

Methodology

This presentation is based on this unique survey of 1,000 likely 2014 voters in the most competitive Senate races across the country, conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for Democracy Corps and the Public Campaign Action Fund. This survey was conducted from July 12-16, 2014 using a list of 2006 voters, 2010 voters, and new registrants. Unless otherwise noted, the margin of error for the full sample is = +/- 3.10% at 95% confidence. 50 percent of respondents were reached by cell phone, in order to account for ever-changing demographics and trying to accurately sample the full American electorate.

Background and Trend Information

3

The Democracy Corps Senate battleground research is one of a kind. Nobody else conducts a poll only in the most competitive Democratic and Republican seats, using the actual names of the incumbents in each district. We include comparisons to a survey done in June, 2014 in partnership with NPR and Resurgent Republic. While the districts remain the same, the July survey is the only survey to use actual names of incumbents and call voters that are likely to vote in the 2014 November election. Respondents were selected off of a voter list who voted in the 2006 or 2010 off-year elections or new registrants with a high intention to vote in 2014. 81 percent of respondents are white. 9 percent of these voters are under 30 3 percent are Latino and 10 percent African American.

Battleground States

4

States Incumbent 2012 Presidential margin

Alaska Mark Begich Romney +14.0

Arkansas Mark Pryor Romney +23.6

Colorado Mark Udall Obama +4.7

Georgia OPEN (Chambliss) Romney +8.0

Iowa OPEN (Harkin) Obama +5.6

Kentucky Mitch McConnell Romney +22.7

Louisiana Mary Landreiu Romney +17.2

Michigan OPEN (Levin) Obama +9.5

Montana John Walsh Romney +13.5

New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen Obama +5.8

North Carolina Kay Hagan Romney +2.2

West Virginia OPEN (Rockefeller) Romney +26.8

Midwest and East

Iowa

Michigan

New Hampshire

West Virginia

Won by Romney

Alaska

Arkansas

Georgia

Kentucky

Louisiana

Montana

North Carolina

West Virginia

Tier 1

Colorado

Michigan

New Hampshire

North Carolina

West

Alaska

Colorado

Montana

South

Arkansas

Georgia

Kentucky

Louisiana

North Carolina

Won by Obama

Colorado

Iowa

Michigan

New Hampshire

Tier 2

Alaska

Arkansas

Iowa

Louisiana

Tier 3

Georgia

Montana

Kentucky

West Virginia

Average margin:

Romney +8.5

Key Findings

There is an intensely Anti-Washington mood in the Senate battleground

Voters strongly negative towards Super PACs, believe spending in politics this year is worse

than the past and is very corrupting.

Overwhelming cross-partisan support of a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United

that can translate into added support for Democratic candidates who support the amendment

and damage Republicans who oppose it.

More than two-to-one support for plan to give public matching funds for small donations to

candidates who reject big donations. Support holds steady after balanced debate on the

proposal.

Republican candidates supporting RNC lawsuit to eliminate individual contribution limits put

themselves in danger of losing support.

Engaging in a debate about money in politics, when it includes push to overturn Citizens United,

moves the Senate Vote a net 5 points towards Democrats.

5

Political Environment

NPR/Resurgent Republic

June, 2014

26 24

68

70

Right direction Wrong Track Right direction Wrong Track

7

-42

Voters deeply unhappy with direction of country

-46

Generally speaking, do you think that things in this country are going in the right direction, or do you feel things have

gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track?

WVWVAF

July, 2014

27 16 9 8 6 8 10

40 33 32

23 22 30 26

47 37 32 44

31 32

38

54 53 49 52 44 49 51

Very warm (75-100) Very cool (0-25)

Barack Obama

8

Mean: 41.1

Net: -14

Mean: 41.1

Net: -20

Mean: 38.9

Net: -25

Mean: 32.5

Net: -29

Mean: 38.0

Net: -22

Mitch McConnell

Democratic Party

Harry Reid Republican

Party

Now, I'd like to rate your feelings toward some people and organizations, with one hundred meaning a VERY WARM, FAVORABLE feeling; zero meaning a VERY COLD, UNFAVORABLE feeling; and fifty meaning not particularly warm or cold.

Republicans and Democrats at Parity. House Republicans Very Unpopular, Bigger Driver of Vote than Senate Republicans

Mean: 42.0

Net: -17

Mean: 35.2

Net: -19

Republicans in Senate

Republican in House

20

43

29

43

Approve Disapprove

Strongly approve Strongly disapprove

Split approval for incumbents Senators in Battleground

9

Do you approve or disapprove of the way (SENATE INCUMBENT) is handling his/her job as a member of the U.S. Senate?

-

All Incumbents

Campaign Finance Debate Moves Voters

10

50 63

47 37

65 75

64 54

13 9 14 17

30 21

31 41

Voters feel current wave of spending in battleground is wrong and favors wealthy – and not politics as usual

11

Spending all of this money on elections is wrong and leads to our elected officials representing the views of wealthy donors who finance super PACs instead of representing all of us.

As you may know, outside groups called Super PACS have already spent 77 million dollars on advertising trying to influence the Senate elections in November. Thinking about this, I want you to tell me which comes closer to your point of view, even if neither is exactly right:

There has always been a lot of money in politics, and this spending is nothing new. It is just the way campaigns are run today.

+35 +54 +33 +13

Democrats Independents Republicans Total

39 33 43

3

55 47

61

7

19 9 11

38 22 14 18

46

Very warm (75-100) Very cool (0-25)

Voters favorable about plan to reform campaign spending. Intense dislike of Super PACs

Now, I'd like to rate your feelings toward some people and organizations, with one hundred meaning a VERY WARM, FAVORABLE feeling; zero meaning a VERY COLD, UNFAVORABLE feeling; and fifty meaning not particularly warm or cold.

12

Mean: 62.4

Net: +33

A plan to overhaul campaign spending by

getting rid of big donations and allowing only small donations to candidates, matched by

taxpayer funds

Mean: 67.4

Net: +33

Mean: 67.7

Net: +43

Every Voice, an organization that is trying to reduce the

influence of big money in politics.

An organization that is trying to reduce the

influence of big money in politics.

Mean: 25.6

Net: -39

Super PACs

Constitutional amendment to limit what outside groups, corporations, unions and the wealthy win overwhelming support

13

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled to allow outside groups, corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence an election, much of which happens without any disclosure of the names of the individuals spending the money. Some in Congress have proposed a new Constitutional Amendment to overturn this ruling and allow Congress to place limits on the amount of money these groups can spend to influence elections. Based on what you know, do you favor or oppose this proposed Constitutional Amendment?

53 52 53

73 73 73

14 16 14

24 25 24

Favor Oppose Favor Oppose Favor Oppose

Strongly favor Strongly oppose

Obama Seats Romney Seats

+49 +49

Total

+48

30

55

28 10

48

71

51

23

9 8 16 11

5 9

20

More likely Less likely More likely Less likely More likely Less likely More likely Less likely

Much less likely Much more likely

14

Candidate that embraces amendment to give power back to regular citizens wins huge support with Democrats and independents

I am going to read you a statement from (Democratic candidate) and I want you to tell me whether (Democratic

candidate)'s position makes you more or less likely to support (him/her), or if it makes no difference.?

Democrats Independents Republicans Total

+37 +66 +43 +3

The Supreme Court's decision has allowed big corporations and special interests to spend hundreds of millions in secret money to try to buy elections, taking power away from regular citizens. That's why I am supporting a Constitutional Amendment to overturn this ruling and put our government back in the hands of ordinary Americans.

31

36

58

66

Best critique on Republicans for opposing amendment focuses on taking away power from average voters

15

BUYING ELECTION TO ADVANCE BILLIONAIRE’S AGENDA (Republican candidate) opposes limits on how much out-of-state billionaires can spend, and now those billionaires are spending millions of dollars to elect (him/her) to the Senate to support their agenda. This is a corrupt system that replaces our voter's needs with special interest goals like tax breaks for millionaires, cuts to Medicare benefits, and privatizing social security.

UNLIMITED MONEY TAKES POWER AWAY FROM REGULAR PEOPLE (Republican candidate) supports the Supreme Court's decision to allow wealthy special interests and big corporations to spend unlimited amounts of secret money to buy elections, taking the power away from regular citizens and putting it in the hands of just a few billionaires.

Now, I am going to read you some things about Republicans like (Republican candidate) who SUPPORT the Supreme Court ruling. Does that raise very serious doubts, serious doubts, minor doubts or no real doubts in your own mind about (the Republican Candidate)?

33 34 32

66 68 65

16 14 16

27 26 27

Favor Oppose Favor Oppose Favor Oppose

Strongly favor Strongly oppose

And critically, matching small contributions with public funds gets strong public support in both Obama and Romney battleground states

16

Under this proposal, Senate candidates would collect a large number of small contributions from individuals in their home states, and these contributions would be matched on a six-to-one basis by public funds. Anyone making a small donation would get a refundable tax credit of twenty-five dollars. Each candidate's public funding would be strictly capped at a certain amount, and all donations would be limited and disclosed. From what you know, would you favor or oppose this proposal?

Obama Seats Romney Seats

+42 +38

Total

+39

Now let me tell you more about another proposal that directly changes the way Senate campaigns are financed.

43 58

40 31

59 70

56 50

22 17 24 26

33 25

34 39

Reform advocates win the public debate – even when attacked as ‘welfare for politicians’ with taxpayer money

17

We need a government of, by and for the people - not government bought and paid for by wealthy donors. It's time we let big donors and private companies pay their fair share of taxes, rather than paying for politicians who will write them special tax breaks. By replacing large contributions from CEOs, PACs, and lobbyists with small contributions from everyday Americans and limited public funds, we'll make every voice count in Washington.

Now I'd like to read two statements about this proposal. Please tell me which comes closer to your point of view, even if neither is exactly right:

Paying for elections with tax dollars is just welfare for politicians. It means politicians will use billions of our taxpayer dollars to fund their campaigns instead of other important issues. Tax money will go to bumper stickers, yard signs, and even negative attacks, and the proposal would require a costly bureaucracy to police our speech. It leaves the super PACs alone, which means it won't really clean up politics. This is not a good use of our tax dollars.

Democrats Independents Republicans Total

+26 +45 +22 +11

6 4 9

13 12 16

23 26 18

34 35 32

More likely Less likely More likely Less likely More likely Less likely

Much more likely Much less likely

Support for RNC lawsuit to overturn individual contribution limits could results in some electoral damage

18

Recently, the Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit to attempt to eliminate limits on how much money wealthy individuals can give to political parties, which is currently capped at 32,400 dollars per individual per election cycle. If you found out that (Republican candidate) supported eliminating these contribution limits, would that make you more or less likely to support (Republican candidate) or does it make no difference?

Dem Incumbent Seats Open Seats Total

5 3 10 7

13 18 42

17 9

53

31

17

More likely Less likely More likely Less likely More likely Less likely

Much more likely Much less likely No difference

Lawsuit endangers Independent and Republican voters

19

Recently, the Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit to attempt to eliminate limits on how much money wealthy individuals can give to political parties, which is currently capped at 32,400 dollars per individual per election cycle. If you found out that (Republican candidate) supported eliminating these contribution limits, would that make you more or less likely to support (Republican candidate) or does it make no difference?

Independents Republicans Democrats

47 47 48 50 47 46 46

43

Dem Rep Dem Rep Dem Rep Dem Rep

Democrat Republican

I know it's a long way off, but thinking about the election for Congress in 2014, if the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you be voting for – the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate?

Battling special interest money, including constitutional amendment has big impact

Message vote

Movement: Full Sample

+2 +7

Final vote

Movement: Half Sample with Citizens Amendment + Finance Reform

Message vote

Final vote

- +1

Note: the entire sample heard the debate over campaign spending reform. ½ heard the debate on Citizens United 20

Biggest shifts come with key groups

21

5

11 9 8 8 8 8 7

Total Ind Women Gen X Independents Open Seats YoungerVoters

ModerateRepublicans

Non-ColWomen

I know it's a long way off, but thinking about the election for Congress in 2014, if the election for U.S. Congress were held today, would you be voting for – the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate?

Net Change in Vote after Hearing Citizens Constitutional Amendment and Public Funding Proposal

EUROPEAN HEADQUARTERS 405 Carrington House 6 Hertford Street London, UK W1J 7SU T: +44.(0).207.096.5070 F: +44.(0).207.096.5068

WORLD HEADQUARTERS 10 G Street, NE Suite 500 Washington, DC 20002 T: 202.478.8300 F: 202.478.8301

LATIN AMERICAN HEADQUARTERS Cabrera 6060, 7D C1414 BHN Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Argentina T: +54.11.4772.0813

www.greenbergresearch.com | www.gqrr.com

CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS 41 East 11 Street, 11th Floor New York, NY 10003 T: 212.231.0050