Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Political corruption seen as America’s biggest problem, another poll shows

Political corruption seen as America’s biggest problem, another poll shows

Most voters named political corruption as a top-of-mind issue ahead of the 2020 election in a new poll.

nicescene/Getty Images

More voters see "corruption in our political system" as the country's most pressing problem than any of the other issues getting greater attention in the 2020 campaign, new polling shows.

The online survey conducted in September asked voters whether seven different issues were an "extremely serious problem" for the country, and the only one where a majority said yes was political corruption; rising health care costs came in second at 49 percent.

The poll is only the latest to declare the electorate's dire concern about the broken political system. In just the last month, two-thirds of voters told one poll they believe the country is on the "edge of a civil war" and a plurality in another poll identified the government itself as the country's biggest problem.

But the topic of democracy reform is getting hardly any mention in the presidential race. Though most of the Democratic candidates have plans for limiting money in politics, making voting easier, securing elections and restoring the balance of powers, few have emphasized these ideas on the trail. And President Trump, who four years ago ran as the candidate most interested in "draining the swamp," rarely mentions this aspiration anymore.


The new poll was released Friday by the group that commissioned it, the Campaign Legal Center. CLC advocates for tighter campaign finance rules and easier access to the polls, and so issues of the broken political system were three of the seven "biggest problems facing the country" from which to choose. And almost two-fifths of respondents labeled "unlimited, secret donations to political campaigns" and "the influence of big money from corporations and special interests in our political system" as extremely serious problems.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Across the political spectrum, majorities in the poll agreed with the notion that they're directly impacted by all the money corporations and special interests spend on elections. Three-quarters agree with the accurate statement that corporate and special-interest campaign spending has increased in the last decade.

But the agency charged with overseeing the campaign finance system has been sidelined for the foreseeable future. While 71 percent of those polled want the Federal Election Commission to take on a more active role in enforcing money-in-politics rules, since September it has been powerless to do so for lack of a quorum.

In a second poll commissioned by CLC and released Friday, an astonishingly strong and bipartisan 83 percent (85 of Democrats and 81 of Republicans) support changing the rules to require public disclosure of contributions to all organizations that spend money on elections. (Currently, politically active nonprofits may keep their donors secret, the source of the term "dark money.")

The first poll of 855 likely voters was conducted online Sept. 16-22 by ALG Research, a Democratic firm, and GS Strategy Group, a Republican firm. The two outfits also conducted the second survey of 800 likely voters contacted Oct. 3-7.

Those polled signaled the requirement should apply equally to groups on both the left and the right. About three-quarters of respondents (the range was 73 percent to 77 percent) said they backed donor disclosure by Planned Parenthood, the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union, which generally back Democrats, and National Right to Life and the National Rifle Association, which generally align with Republicans.

"Real transparency about who is spending big money on elections will mean more government accountability, less influence for wealthy special interests and less political corruption," said Trevor Potter, CLC's president and a Republican commissioner on the FEC two devades ago.

With enough commissioners, the FEC could address the public's call for increased transparency by creating new disclosure requirements. For the time being, though, the agency cannot create new rules.

Even before the FEC lost its quorum, it was not consistently enforcing campaign finance laws due to frequent partisan deadlocks, Potter said. And now, with only three members, the agency cannot address violations "during one of the most expensive election cycles in history," he said.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less