Majority of respondents support legislation that would regulate how corporations spend money on political advertising.
Most Americans disagree with a recent United States Supreme Court decision that allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money supporting federal political candidates, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.
On Jan. 21, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the federal government cannot ban corporations from spending in federal elections.
In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,003 American adults, 32 per cent of Americans say they have followed this story in the news moderately or very closely, while 68 per cent either have not followed it closely or not followed it at all.
Overall, almost two thirds of Americans (65%) disagree—44 per cent strongly—with the Supreme Court’s decision on campaign spending by corporations. Only 17 per cent of respondents agree with the ruling.
Two Views on the Issue
A large majority of Americans (68%) believe the Supreme Court’s decision hands more influence to lobbyists and special interest groups to tip the outcome of elections—an opinion first expressed by U.S. President Barack Obama in the immediate aftermath of the ruling.
On the other hand, 45 per cent of respondents agree with a statement issued by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who claimed that corporations should have the right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until election day. Forty-two per cent of Americans disagree with this notion.
Regulating Spending
About three quarters of respondents across the country are in favour of legislation that would regulate the way corporations can spend in political advertising, such as requiring the approval of a majority of shareholders before a corporation can run a political ad (74%); requiring that the chief executive of the corporation appear at the end of the ad so the public knows who is behind it (75%), and limiting the ad-spending of corporations that have received federal bailout money or that are awarded federal contracts (75%).
Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)
CONTACT:
Mario Canseco, Vice President, Public Affairs
+604 647 3570
mario.canseco@angus-reid.com
I believe that this will only empower the lobbyists even more and further the decline of “For the people, By the people”. Big corporate America is so out of touch with the American public as evidenced by the CEO’s and corporate leaders receiving huge bonuses just months after being “bailed out”. The Supreme Court missed this one.
This decision was an extention of a paper work mistake in legal paperwork more than a century ago, corporations are not granted a person hood under the US CONSTUTION and as a constructed for profit vehical they are not entitled to a FREE SPEECH RIGHT as an artificial entity, the individules in these comanys/corporations already have rights as granted by their countries and this DOES allow foreign companys/individules who do not have the “commongood” of the people of the US to shape things to their advantage and the dis-advantage of the people.
I am one of the ones who answered in support of the Supreme Court’s decision. Originally, I was neither for or against it, but then I heard the argument that caused the Court to rule as it did, and I had to agree. A person arguing in favor of the blocking of the movie about Hillary Clinton was asked if those bringing the suit would have acted as they did if the objection had been to a book rather than a movie. They answered that it would have made no difference. That caused the Court to see this as an attempt to silence free speech. As a former bookseller, that made a great difference to me, as well. Freedom of the press/freedom of speech extends to the New York Times despite the fact of their obvious bias. Why should that freedom be denied another corporate entity because they are taking a view that is opposed by those of a more liberal persuasion?
STOP ALL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE.HOW MAYN LOUSY BILL HAVE BEEN PASSED BECAUSE OF THE BIG BUCKS.
THOSE GUYS ON THE HILL SHOULD ONLY HAVE THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE ON THEIR MINDS.
AFTER ALL, ISN’THAT WHY WE VOTED THEM IN?