Becki previously mentioned a post on the Under the Dome blog that highlighted a “poll” conducted by the NC Center for Voter Education on the issue of taxpayer financing.
Here’s what the post says about one of the findings: “Seventy percent said they would favor Council of State candidates whose campaigns are funded by taxpayers over those candidates funded by the special interests their offices oversee.”
A representative from the NC Center for Voter Education defended the poll language (and the criticism it already is receiving) by arguing:
“In our recent poll, we asked the “taxpayer financed” versus “special interest” question in a deliberate attempt to use the characterizations that opponents and advocates use when discussing publicly financed campaigns….By using these characterizations we get an idea of how North Carolinians feel about the idea when they compare the messaging from both sides.”
Here’s my comment that I just posted (with links added):
__________
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, click here.
__________
