newsobserver.com projects - council of state - Comments

RE: Supporters of publicly financed elections

PlaybyPlay — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:40:26 -0500

A public funded election option is fine. But that money should never come from taxes or fees. If locations want to have a special box on their tax forms or water bills to ask for additional money like the federal government does, than by all means let’s add this as an option. But restrictions on those not taking public funds and matching funds for those who do should be removed.

Then we will see the real support for public funded elections. Publicly funded campaigns will be limited by how much money the government agency raises each year minus the additional costs required to administer the program and then split between those who qualify to use the funds.

Voluntary participation by residents should be the only vote that decides if this program is funded or not.

… I do believe it could be a campaign slogan for some that they are beholden to no one, but that should include the bloated government too.

Re: Berry questions bills in TVA case

PaulTerrell — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:18:46 -0400

Lets be honest here. Cooper did not go after Black or Easley. Do you really expect him to look out for the interest of the taxpayers?

Re: Poll finds support for public financing

markjohnson — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:27:54 -0400

Comment advertising retail outlet deleted. MJ

Re: Hagan: stimulus, health reform coming

BitterEXdemocrat — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:17:18 -0400

Listen to Obama? Why? he's nothing without a prewritten script.

Re: Poll finds support for public financing

DarenBakst — Fri, 22 May 2009 18:52:06 -0400

One single question isn't a push poll. Was the poll about one candidate? Were all the questions negative towards Obama or McCain? What was the sample? See e.g.:
http://www.aapor.org/aaporstatementonpushpolls

Regarding the "bad for North Carolina" language, you are inferring that wasn't part of the criticism.

As I explained in my post, I'd need the context and additional information.

Re: Poll finds support for public financing

scharrison — Tue, 19 May 2009 18:33:37 -0400

Nice try, Daren. I'll answer my own question: it is advocacy, because the poll question "seeks to teach". It teaches about McCain, it teaches about Obama, and it infers that something might be "BAD FOR
PEOPLE IN NORTH CAROLINA".

Now, I want you to do a little mental exercise for me: of the 600(?) people polled, how many (what percent) already knew what "John McCain and other critics" had said about Obama re the redistribution of wealth?

Re: Poll finds support for public financing

gercohen — Tue, 19 May 2009 18:09:31 -0400

Darren says:
"If John McCain claimed Obama was a "very angry martian," wouldn't it be OK to ask "Do you agree or disagree with John McCain's claim that Obama is a very angry martian?" The pollster isn't suggesting that Obama is a martian."

Unless Obama in fact is a Martian, and the issue was whether he was a very angry one, including that poll question only leads to the conclusion that it is a push poll where the pollster wants to plant the idea that Obama is a Martian.

Re: Poll finds support for public financing

DarenBakst — Tue, 19 May 2009 15:45:27 -0400

Please see the below post--for some reason my response was being posted twice.

Re: Poll finds support for public financing

DarenBakst — Tue, 19 May 2009 15:43:33 -0400

Scharrison:

Sorry for the delay--I just saw your post.

As for the poll question, I don't know enough about the context. Is the question inaccurate in some way? I don't think it is--didn't McCain and other critics make that specific criticism?

The question asks whether respondents agree with a criticism made by McCain (it is not framing something as a fact). If the pollster was literally trying to find out if people agreed with the criticism and the pollster didn't draw or infer anymore from the question and its answers, then it should be fine.

If I discovered that McCain didn't provide this criticism or the level of the criticism wasn't fairly characterized, then I'd rethink my answer.

How else would you ask whether people agree with McCain on this specific criticism? I will admit if they could have identified a specific quote that captured the criticism, that would have been ideal, however that may not have been feasible.

If John McCain claimed Obama was a "very angry martian," wouldn't it be OK to ask "Do you agree or disagree with John McCain's claim that Obama is a
very angry martian?" The pollster isn't suggesting that Obama is a martian.

The NC Center for Voter Education (NCVE) question was inaccurate and led people to believe that the content of the question was fact, not opinion (unlike in your example). The organization drew incorrect conclusions based on the question. If NCVE simply said the results show that when certain characterizations are used, the results show X, that would have been fine. Instead the question that NCVE admits was designed to see how people react to certain characterizations was instead used to make general conclusions about the support or lack of support for taxpayer financing of campaigns.

Daren Bakst, J.D,, LL.M.
Legal and Regulatory Analyst
John Locke Foundation
http://www.johnlocke.org

Re: Coop: Will decide by spring

Kingixolib — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:16:49 -0400

I guess if he ignores the Easley stuff then it is a non issue and he can then turn his blinders away from fulfilling his current job requirements and run for another public office........just like John Edwards. WOW!

Re: Coop: Will decide by spring

Taxpayer2008 — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:00:01 -0400

Forgetaboutit Coop. The voters want politcal resolve, not another spinelss politician who lacks the character to do what needs to be done.

You bamboozled the voters until 2012. How about honoring those voters who elected you? Complete your term or just go ask Easley for a job.

Re: Poll finds support for public financing

PaulTerrell — Mon, 11 May 2009 17:15:48 -0400

Well scharrison, you do know that ACORN is under criminal investigation in multiple states. They have gotten multiple millions in taxpayer money of which a small portion comes out of my wallet. So that question you posed is TRUE. And it is true because Obama has worked for ACORN and even steered millions of his campaign dollars to them. And he continues to support their efforts. If ACORN is following the book I don't have a issue with them. But when two of their senior people are fired for asking for a complete audit of ACORN I do have a right to ask why.

Any question that is more than one short sentence is treading close to advocacy anyways.

Re: Poll finds support for public financing

scharrison — Mon, 11 May 2009 16:39:34 -0400

"There’s nothing wrong with using “special interests” in your advocacy materials or in debates. However, this wasn’t supposed to be an advocacy project. It was a poll. The only thing you found out is that your skewed wording predictably skewed the answers."

I'll give you a maybe on that assessment Daren, if you'll render an opinion on whether this pre-election poll question was "advocacy" or not:

DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH JOHN MCCAIN AND OTHER CRITICS
WHO SAY BARACK OBAMA IS HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY PEOPLE AND
ORGANIZATIONS THAT SEEK SOCIAL JUSTICE THROUGH THE
REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IN AMERICA AND THIS IS BAD FOR
PEOPLE IN NORTH CAROLINA?

Re: Poll finds support for public financing

gercohen — Mon, 11 May 2009 16:32:52 -0400

what about adding another option for the poll receipent "I do not believe in electing this office."?

Re: Poll finds support for public financing

DarenBakst — Mon, 11 May 2009 15:21:06 -0400

There’s nothing wrong with using “special interests” in your advocacy materials or in debates. However, this wasn’t supposed to be an advocacy project. It was a poll. The only thing you found out is that your skewed wording predictably skewed the answers.

"Taxpayer financing" is not a characterization, it is a factual statement. "Special interests" is a characterization. Your question also does not just say "special interests," according to the post above. It says "candidates funded by the special interests their offices oversee."

This suggests that the candidates' support comes exclusively from special interests. Even worse, it suggests the money only comes from the special interests that their offices oversee. Both suggestions of course do not accurately reflect candidates that decide not to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize their campaigns.

I also should note that candidates that accept taxpayer dollars (subsidized candidates) also must get support from "special interests" through qualifying contributions. "Special interests" also don't have to provide direct contributions to campaigns to help out candidates--there are independent expenditures and issue advocacy.

If we want to determine support for taxpayer financing, there's a simple solution. All we need to do is see how many taxpayers are checking their tax returns to divert $3 of their taxes to the taxpayer financing programs. It doesn't increase a taxpayer's tax burden whatsoever, yet despite this, only about 7-8% of taxpayers have wanted $3 of their taxes diverted to the judicial campaign fund. In other words, about 92% of North Carolina taxpayers oppose taxpayer financing of campaigns.

NC's taxpayer financing systems also are unconstitutional due to the matching fund provisions. It is irresponsible for some legislators to be pushing bills they know will be shot down in court. To learn more, see: http://www.johnlocke.org/spotlights/display_story.html?id=216

Daren Bakst, J.D. LL.M.
Legal and Regulatory Analyst
John Locke Foundation