Politics

GOP Voters: No Taxpayer Subsidies for Politicians

While candidates take money, poll finds 74 percent of GOP electorate oppose subsidies
By: Kenric Ward | Posted: August 4, 2010 1:20 PM


Republican voters are dead-set against public financing of election campaigns in Florida, a new Sunshine State News Poll reveals.

Asked, "Do you support or oppose Florida’s public finance law that allows taxpayer dollars to subsidize the cost of campaigns for candidates seeking statewide office?" Seventy-four percent of respondents answered "oppose."


Just 12 percent supported the law and 13 percent were undecided.

The lopsided results help to explain Bill McCollum's slide in the GOP gubernatorial race. The attorney general has accepted $1.7 million in public financing in his bid to compete with multimillionaire Rick Scott's spending blitz.

Scott, a retired health-care executive, has expended more than $21 million of his own money in the primary contest.

A second funding spigot was turned off last week by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which would have been triggered if Scott pierced the $24.9 million spending cap. The court issued an injunction due to Scott's challenge that the funding infringed on his First Amendment rights.

Those concerns are shared by Republican voters in the Voter Survey Service poll conducted July 26-30. The poll, commissioned by Sunshine State News, interviewed 1,345 likely GOP voters -- the largest statewide sampling this election year.

Opposition to Florida's election-finance program was widespread. Among all age groups and all geographic areas, at least 69 percent of respondents objected to the law, which former Gov. Jeb Bush once derided as "welfare for politicians."

Jim Lee, president of the Harrisburg, Pa.-based VSS, said the results were to be expected.

"People are saying public financing is the last thing government should be spending money on when everyone is having to tighten their belts and government is having to lay people off and cancel programs," Lee said.

University of Florida political science professor Daniel Smith said he was "not shocked" by the poll's results, "given the (Republican) demographics."

But, he added, "If you phrase the question differently ... there is support for alternative types of public financing."

Nevertheless, "Rick Scott has made this a big issue. It's certainly not good for Bill McCollum if Scott keeps hammering at it," Smith said.

Lee added, "I don't think we'd see much of a different result with independents. Maybe with Democrats, but not that big of a difference at all."

The Florida Legislature in 1991 enacted a $500 limit on individual campaign contributions for candidates who opt in to the public-finance system.

But McCollum, like other candidates, skirted the law by leveraging "independent" political committees to raise millions of dollars free of the $500 cap. The Sunshine State Freedom Fund, the Florida First Initiative and other committees founded by his allies have raised and spent more than $3 million since June attacking Scott.

Funding for these so-called "527" groups came from some of the heaviest hitters in Tallahassee: Blue Cross Blue Shield, U.S. Sugar, Auto Nation, the Florida Retail Federation, tobacco companies, medical lobbies and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

A simultaneous VSS poll reported Tuesday that McCollum trails Scott by 16 points. Those results were similar to a Quinnipiac Poll, which showed Scott leading by 11 points. Other pollsters have also reported double-digit margins for Scott.


Comments (1)

Craig Dunkerley
2:16AM AUG 5TH 2010
The way the question was worded, it might as well have asked "Do you support drowning kittens in sacks?" If a representative sample of all voters had been asked an alternate question, the results may have been quite different. How about, "Do you support funding election campaigns with unlimited amounts of special interest money from unions, wealthy individuals, and large corporations?" ...or maybe "Do you think wealthy special interest groups and lobbyists have too much influence in politics?" Polls like the one conducted are worse than useless, they're damaging to our democracy because they distort the facts, obscure the real issues, and manipulate voters. I wonder why the sponsors of such polls are afraid to give voters objective information and ask honest, unbiased questions.