
Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito may not have wanted to hear it during the State Of The Union address, but a new poll shows the majority of Americans agree with President Obama's take on the Citizens United ruling. More than 60 percent of respondents say it was a bad idea.
The opposition was found across party lines, and according to the pollsters was especially common among independents -- the group both parties have desperately fought over for a decade now. The pollsters said that result suggests that the parties would be well-served to take on the ruling and reinstate campaign finance regulations canceled out by the ruling with new law.
The poll was conducted by a bipartisan pairing of Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and Republican strategist Mark McKinnon. The sponsors were several groups opposed to the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, which they say will open the door to unheard of corporate influence in American politics. The results of the survey show that the general public overwhelmingly agrees. Sixty-four percent of respondents were opposed to ruling, while just 27% said they favored it.
"The results are pretty striking," Greeberg said on a conference call with reporters this morning. He said that the current anti-establishment fervor in the electorate suggests that incumbents should get as far away from the Citizens United ruling as they can. "The last thing people want to see in this environment is corporations having more influence on politicians."
That's especially true among independents, as data from the poll shows.
More than 80% of independents said new limits should be placed on campaign spending. Seventy-four percent of independents agreed with the statement that "special interests have too much influence in Washington."
Though the results are good news for campaign finance reform fans, they're not so good for the party in power at the moment. Independents did not give positive reviews on how Democrats have dealt with the problem of special interest influence in Washington. Just 30% said President Obama has reduced the power of lobbyists in Washington, while 50% said special interests have gained more power in the city since he took office.


hollywood
February 8, 2010 2:12 PM
Well that is reassuring I guess ...... but, typically when a large majority of citizens feels strongly about an issue it doesn't matter in America because we are not at all close to a democracy. Just like the Public Option in healthcare, a 60- 70% majority in public opinion translates into dogshit in the US Senate. America is not a democracy. We are 300 million sheep kept in a large pen by those who profit from working us to death and selling our flesh and bones on the "Free Market".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
February 8, 2010 2:25 PM
Special interests have not gained "more power" it's just become "more apparent".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
February 8, 2010 2:36 PM
You mean enact legislation supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans? You mean like the public option?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Thomas G Williams
February 8, 2010 3:01 PM
Hey DEMOCRATS if the president goes on national tv during primetime with an appeal to the American people to contact the RETHUGLICAN PARTY and tell them to support the end of corporate involvement in the political process (ala Reagan) it seems clear that the american people will not only support it but that they will do so enthusiastically and it will garner significant independant AND registered republican voter support. *** END THE LIE OF CORPORATE PERSONHOOD*** then you can deal these 'hoods' a blow that is clearly in the public interest.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lalo35adm
February 8, 2010 3:03 PM
Why should the opinion of the majority matter?
What would that mean to gay rights, civil rights and all that? The tyranny of the majority has never been a good thing - unless it suits the scheming of the party in power.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
February 8, 2010 3:51 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
Dearest Lalo~ You are confusing public policies with civil rights. Civil rights are not subject to majority rule by design of the Bill of RIghts. Blacks would never have gained equal rights if basic equality was just a majority/minority vote away. No minority would ever get equal rights as the definition of ''minority' would prevent electoral victory in a democracy. Sadly the right wing has trampled this part of American democracy in their endless votes on gay rights and gay marriage. The majority opinion on minority rights was always meant to be just that, their opinion, not the law. It is the role of the courts to uphold this principle ..... we are waiting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
February 8, 2010 7:32 PM in reply to hollywood
"You are confusing public policies with civil rights."
Actually, "conflating" is more accurate, this is intentional not accidental.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
February 8, 2010 4:00 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
Get a clue Lalo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sj
February 8, 2010 7:10 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
You have a point; that conflict between the two goods -- majority rule and protecting certain rights of the minority has been perhaps the central conflict of American constitutional law since the Federalist Papers. At the moment, the best answer I can give you is that we have to do the best we can to ensure that wise men and women are on the Supreme Court.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
February 8, 2010 7:23 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
You want to whine about "tyranny of the majority?"
I bet you weren't so willing to write off the majority when the republicans ruled.
Chew on this;
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/08/progressive_taxes_win_big_in_oregon/
The majority is about to exact some serious payback for what Bush did to them with his tax cuts. And no matter how you spin it, the majority has every right to be tyrannical, they have been the victims of much worse through the recent years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
February 8, 2010 3:21 PM
There goes that 30% again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 8, 2010 3:26 PM
This is a teachable moment. People need to be reminded that the consequences of electing a George Bush don't end when his term is up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
February 8, 2010 7:29 PM
I would love to see how the middle-class members of that 30% minority who supported this travesty would feel if it was Democrats who brought this case to the SC.
Imagine if it had been LIBERAL corporation heads, like Ben and Jerry or George Soros who financed this case, so they could give to Dems unfettered by legal restrictions.
It would be sheer proof that these corporate enablers are just political lemmings, they have no idea what it is they really support.
If the poll questions they were asked included "should corporations be allowed to give campaign contributions to Democrats" they'd be screaming bloody murder.
HYPOCRITES!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mentata
February 8, 2010 8:33 PM
With this ruling I was honestly stunned. I didn't see this stupidity coming at all, and believe me where I live I've gotten used to seeing some pretty stupid judges. Not that they think so, of course.
We know there is rarely much separation of church and business, and we may pretend to a separation of church and state, but separation of state and business seems to me the greatest mirage. This ruling is like red carpet on a slope that indeed may cause a government to slip new rights and privileges to businesses.
I understand the point about the campaigns already awash in corporate money, etc. but I imagine some businesses may decide they now don't need to hedge their bets and just pick a side. Rupert did. Either way, the individual loses. Realistically, the Democrats too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goldiera
February 9, 2010 1:27 AM
It doesn't matter how many people are unhappy with that terrible ruling by the supreme court. Unless people rise up and demand it be overturned, nothing (as usual) will change. Poll numbers don't matter to the corporate powers that have taken over our government.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ivy22
February 9, 2010 8:02 AM
OOoohh! Just what we need more corporate power. How's that persony businessy thing working for you???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
June 6, 2010 11:18 PM
Why should the opinion of the majority matter?
What would that mean to gay rights, civil rights and all that? The tyranny of the majority has never been a good thing - unless it suits the scheming of the party in power.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
April 24, 2011 6:21 PM
I dont know what to say. This is definitely one of the better blogs Ive read. Youre so insightful, have so much real stuff to bring to the table.
wizard of oz books
snow cone syrup
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?