Executive Decision Results
for 5/20-6/3
Review
During the past two weeks our hypothetical chief executives had to make a
domestic-policy decision concerning campaign-finance reform. (Click here to view the full Executive Decision memo for this
scenario, written by Jack Beatty.) The options presented to the President
by his or her aides were the following:
The Results
Go for the End Zone. 59% of respondents voted for the sweeping reform
of campaign-finance laws outlined in Option B. The rest (41%) chose to
go no further than the bipartisan bill in Congress. Of those who supported
Option B,
some expressed hope that substantial reform would give citizens more say in
the political system, while others felt that halfhearted reform can often
be worse than no reform at all. Many emphasized that citizens have to work
to become more involved in the political system before any substantial
change is possible. Those who chose the bipartisan option
felt that seeking a constitutional amendment is not practical and that the
reform opportunity represented by the bipartisan bill is a rare one. Some
also saw no need to limit personal campaign spending since candidates
such as Steve Forbes and Ross Perot did not even come close to being
elected.
Some respondents did not agree with either option and suggested other
methods of reform, such as pushing the networks to provide free air-time
for candidates and getting rid of the subsidies that encourage PACs in the
first place. Finally, some said that there's actually too little money
available for candidates and that we should raise contribution limits
accordingly.
Party Lines. Of those respondents who indicated a political affiliation,
44% were Democrats, 20% Republicans, and 27% Independents; of those
remaining, 5% selected Other and 5% were unregistered. Independents were,
percentage-wise, the most supportive of Option B, followed by Democrats,
Other and Unregistereds, and then Republicans.
| Option |
Republicans |
Democrats |
Independents |
Other |
Unregistered |
|---|
| Option A |
24% |
44% |
22% |
5% |
5% |
| Option B |
17% |
44% |
30% |
4% |
5% |
The Significance of the Issue. While the issue of campaign-finance
reform may not
affect people as directly as some of the other scenarios we've presented,
it obviously struck a chord with many of the participants, especially
those who voted for sweeping reform.
| Issue |
THE Most Significant Issue |
Very Important |
Fairly Important |
Not Very Important |
Completely Irrelevant |
|---|
| Campaign-Finance Reform |
9% |
41% |
27% |
20% |
4% |
| Health-Care Reform |
4% |
39% |
41% |
13% |
2% |
| Entitlement Reform |
12% |
56% |
27% |
4% |
2% |
| Immigration Reform |
2% |
32% |
50% |
15% |
1% |
Those who picked Option B tended to feel that campaign-finance reform was a
more important issue than did respondents who selected Option A.
| Option |
THE Most Significant Issue |
Very Important |
Fairly Important |
Not Very Important |
Completely Irrelevant |
|---|
| Option A |
9% |
23% |
37% |
26% |
5% |
| Option B |
9% |
52% |
20% |
16% |
3% |
Age. Of respondents who indicated their age, only 1% were under
18, 40% were 18-34, 18% were 35-44, 22% were
45-54, and 20% were over 55. Those 45 and above
tended to lean toward sweeping reform more than did younger respondents.
| Age Range |
Option A |
Option B |
|---|
| Under 18 |
0% |
1% |
| 18-34 |
44% |
35% |
| 35-44 |
23% |
14% |
| 45-54 |
19% |
25% |
| Over 55 |
14% |
25% |
Race and Gender. The breakdown of
choices by race showed little variation. Women, who made up
14% of total respondents, were significantly more likely to vote for Option B
(69%) than option A (31%). Likewise, 40% of men chose option A and 60%
chose option B.
Click here to return to the Executive Decision
index page.
Copyright ©1996 by The Atlantic Monthly Company. All rights
reserved.
|
