Poll: Most want limits on campaign spending

CBS

CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.

A majority of Americans favor limits on both how much money individuals can contribute to political campaigns and on how much outside groups can spend on advertisements designed to influence an election, according to a new CBS News/New York Times survey.

Sixty-four percent said the government should limit individual contributions to campaigns, while 31 percent favored allowing individuals to make unlimited campaign contributions. Majorities of Republicans, Democrats and indipendents all favored limiting contributions.

Individuals are currently allowed to give $2,500 to each candidate or candidate committee during an election cycle, and $30,800 to a national party committee each election year.

In this election cycle, super PACs backing various presidential candidates - though not officially affiliated with them - have already spent millions on ads to prop up or tear down a candidate. In the CBS News/New York Times survey, Americans were told that groups that are technically unaffiliated with candidates can spend unlimited money on advertisements during a presidential campaign, and asked if such spending should be limited by law.

Sixty-seven percent of respondents - including clear majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents - said yes. Only 29 percent favored the unlimited spending on advertising from outside groups now permitted by law.

MORE FROM THE POLL:

Poll: Obama ties Romney in head-to-head match up

Poll: 4 in 10 say gov't should pay more attention to minority issues

Poll: More see signs of life in economy

Poll: Obama's approval rating stable; Americans want compromise

Poll: Mitt Romney atop fluid GOP race with 28%

Read the full poll (PDF):

Race relations and the role of the federal government
The economy, the president and the general election
The Republican race for the nomination

---

This poll was conducted by telephone from January 12-17, 2012 among 1,154 adults nationwide.

1,021 interviews were conducted with registered voters and 340 with voters who said they plan to vote in a Republican primary. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The margin of error for the sample of registered voters could be plus or minus three points and five points for the sample of Republican primary voters. The error for subgroups may be higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

[mick7744]

Americans should at least be allowed to know who is purchasing their government and on who's behlf.

That way, there will be no major surprises when corporate taxes are done away with completely and citizens are taxed at 72% (subject to change as government liabilities rise)

These people couldn't be controlled before, and now they are spending untold millions...perhaps billions, and we don't even know who they are or who they represent.

One thing is sure...

They don't represent the American people!

[KPeters_from_UK]

per1sh1,
Come again?

Could you provide a few facts to support your claim? If you can't don't accuse.

[antoniof123]

per1sh1 you sir are not only an idiot but a moron too if that is possible.

[slatep]

ALL political contributions; to any person running for any office; by SuperPacs, lobbyists, big business and the wealthy should be
eliminated completely.

This is the only way we are going to get even a somewhat honest Congressmen or Senator pn office.

Put an end to bought and paid for what are SUPPOSED to be representatives of the American people.

[mryoubrian]

Don't forget TERM LIMITS!

Make every candidate you support from now on, sign a pledge to vote "YES" for term limits their first year in office.

[wfw3536]

I guess Obama believes in this as he raises a record one billion dollars for this election. Hopefully the GOP isn't so foolish like in the 2008 election and take the government money of about 200 million when Obama outspent McCain by 4 to 1. Money is the name of the game and always will be in politics.

[venusvegasvada]

Absolutely. We have to get the best people in there, not the ones with the deepest pockets. Set a reasonable limit that would allow anyone a shot.

While their at it make it illegal for any Representative or Senator to accept any money or gift for themselves or their families while in office or for a period of 4 years after they get out. They get a paycheck don't they? That's what they get to live on. No freebies. No stock options. No golf course memberships or rides on someones Lear Jet. If these guys spent their time working rather than jet setting we might get something done. Let them punch a clock and justify the hours they work.

[involved_indi]

I think the use of paid campaign advertising should not be allowed until April 1, the year of the actual election. Compact the primaries and caucuses into May 1 - July 31. Hold the conventions between August 15 & September 15 and get rid of all the bickering and gotcha moments that mean nothing.

[ThomasSense]

With the internet, there is no limit to getting a candidate's message out. Political advertising is just a mud fight.

[Lindag10]

Get rid of the PAC's and "Superpac's" this is ridiculous. The lobbying needs to stop too. Politicians are not serving the people, they serve their financial masters.

[freeamerica31]

Just increase taxes...I know everyone will like that idea!

Give each candidate with the appropriate amount of signatures to prove their a viable candidate the same amount of funds.

Put words to paper and prove you can run a budget. Gives us an idea how they will do in the position their running for in an election.

[bantamei]

We need a constitutional amendment to limit the amount of money that can be spent on campaigning and on how long the campaigns can last, like 6 months prior to an election. A constitutional banning lobbyists wouldn't be bad either

[ProgressNow]

I totally agree with you. This would be the fastest and least controversial amendment ever passed.

[steeepe]

Makes sense. Otherwise, we get the best politicians money can buy, which isn't very good. The Supreme Court exhibited supreme stupidity and ignorance with their Citizens United decision. It would be much better if elections were publicly funded and not affected by special interest money.