AMERICANS EVALUATE
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

A Survey of Voters Nationwide

Primary Investigator: Steven Kull
Research Staff: Evan Fehsenfeld, Francesca Martens
and Evan Charles Lewitus
MAY 2018

 AMERICANS EVALUATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM PROPOSALS 

1 

 

 

OVERVIEW 
 
Numerous polls have found extremely high levels of dissatisfaction with the Federal government, 
especially Congress.  This dissatisfaction is closely related to a widespread public perception that elected 
officials in Washington do not serve the common good of the people, but rather special interests, 
corporations, and the wealthy.  The mechanism for the influence of special interests, corporations, and 
the wealthy is widely seen as being campaign donations.  This perception has only been enhanced by the 
extraordinary increase in the amount of money flowing into Congressional and presidential campaigns 
over the last decades.  Few observers contest the public’s perception of the linkage between campaign 
donations and influence over elected officials.   
The amount of campaign‐related money and the perception of the influence of money on elected 
officials was further enhanced by the US Supreme Court’s 2010 decision, generally known as Citizens 
United, which opened up new channels for donations, especially through organizations called ‘Super 
PACs.’  
 
In response to this widespread concern about the influence of campaign donations on elected officials, 
members of Congress have put forward numerous legislative proposals. The aim of this study is to give a 
representative sample of voters an opportunity to evaluate the currently proposed Congressional 
legislation to reduce or counter the influence of campaign donations.   
 
Development of the Survey   
For this type of topic, standard polls are inadequate as few citizens have sufficient information about the 
legislative proposals to provide meaningful input, though they do have values and priorities that very 
much apply to those proposals.  Thus, this study employs a survey method that takes respondents 
through a process called a policymaking simulation. For each proposal, the respondent is given a briefing 
and is asked to evaluate arguments for and against each proposal before making their final 
recommendation for how they think their Member of Congress should vote.   
The policymaking simulation on immigration reform was developed by the Program for Public 
Consultation of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland.   
Congressional testimony, Executive Branch statements and other sources were used to help formulate 
the background and rationale for the proposed Congressional legislation as well as the key arguments 
for and against each option.  
The draft text was reviewed by experts including ones who favor and who oppose the proposed reforms to 
ensure that the briefings were accurate and balanced, and that the arguments presented were the 
strongest ones being made.  Changes were made in response to feedback. 
In selecting the proposed Congressional legislation, paramount is a proposal for a constitutional 
amendment that would effectively supersede the Citizens United decision in Senate Resolution 8 
sponsored by Sen. Tom Udall and House Resolution 31 sponsored by Rep. Theodore Deutch. 
 
 

 2 

PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

 

 
However, such a constitutional amendment faces long odds for success. Other bills propose more 
limited ways to reduce or counterbalance the influence of campaign donations.  These include proposed 
legislation that seeks to:  
Increase Disclosure Requirements for Campaign‐Related Donations  




H.R. 1439 ‐ Keeping Our Campaigns Honest Act of 2017 Sponsored by Rep. Ben Lujan 
H.R. 1134 ‐ DISCLOSE 2017 Act Sponsored by Rep. David Cicilline  
H.R. 133 ‐ To reduce Federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of 
Presidential election campaigns Sponsored by Rep. Tom Cole 
H.R. 2008 ‐  Kids First Research Act 2.0 Sponsored by Rep. Barbara Comstock 


 
Increase the Relative Influence of Small Donors  



H.R. 20 ‐ Government By the People Act of 2017 Sponsored by Rep. John Sarbanes 
S. 1640 ‐ Fair Elections Now Act Sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin  

Prohibit One‐on‐One Fundraising by Members of Congress 


H.R. 528 ‐ Stop Act Sponsored by Rep. Brendan Boyle 
 
Many advocates of campaign finance reform have stressed the value of public financing of presidential 
campaigns. The existing program for such public financing has, however, fallen on hard times as 
presidential campaigns have opted to forego the relatively limited funds available through the public 
financing program because of the limits it imposes.  Two current bills that call for ending the program 
were also tested: HR 133, sponsored by Rep. Tom Cole, and HR 2008 by Barbara Comstock. 
Fielding of Survey 
The survey was fielded online with a national sample or registered voters provided by Nielsen‐
Scarborough from its larger sample, which is recruited by telephone and mail from a random sample of 
households.     
Responses were subsequently weighted by age, income, gender, education, race and geographic region.  
Benchmarks for weights were obtained from the US Census’ Current Populations Survey of Registered 
Voters.  The sample was also weighted by partisan affiliation. 
The survey was conducted in three waves:  
 

Wave 1: August 3‐16, 2017: 3,045 registered voters (margin of error +/‐1.8%)  
Wave 2: September 7 ‐ October 3, 2017: 2,482 registered voters (margin of error +/‐2.0%).  
Wave 3: September 22 ‐ October 17, 2017: 2,569 registered voters (margin of error +/‐1.9%).   
 
 

 

 AMERICANS EVALUATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM PROPOSALS 

3 

 

 

KEY FINDINGS 
Perceived Importance of Offsetting Big Campaign Donors   
Overwhelming bipartisan majorities see it as important to reduce or counterbalance the influence of big campaign 
donors on the Federal government. 
 
Constitutional Amendment to Allow Limits on Campaign Funding 
A very large bipartisan majority would favor a Constitutional amendment that would effectively overturn the 
‘Citizens United’ decision by allowing Congress and the states to regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising 
and spending of money by candidates and others who seek to influence elections. They would also be able to 
distinguish between people and corporations or other organizations, thus allowing legislators to restrict or 
prohibit corporations and other organizations from spending money to influence elections. Large majorities 
believe this would be effective in offsetting the influence of big campaign donors. 
 
Increasing Disclosure Requirements for Political Donations  
Overwhelming bipartisan majorities approved a variety of proposals requiring greater disclosure of campaign‐
related donations. Large majorities believed that such requirements would be effective at offsetting the influence 
of large donors.  These proposals included: 
 
 requiring that all individuals or organizations that donate or receive a total of $10,000 or more for 
campaign‐related activities promptly register with the FEC, have their name and the amount of the 
donations listed on the Commission’s website;  
 requiring that independent campaign‐related expenditures by corporations, unions, and other groups 
promptly report such spending to shareholders, members, and the general public, as well as the FEC;  
 requiring that names of significant donors paying for TV or radio ads in support of candidates or related to 
controversial issues be publicly disclosed;  
 requiring donors using credit cards to provide the address in which they are registered to vote in the US, 
to get the CVV on all online donations, and to get and report the address of all credit card donors, not just 
those giving $50 or more as currently required by law.   
 
Promoting Donations by Small Donors                                                                                                            
Respondents evaluated several proposals that seek to offset the influence of big campaign donors by promoting 
more donations by small donors. Six in ten favor a proposal to promote donations by small donors by providing a 
tax credit for donations limited to $50 per candidate.  However, less than half believe that it will be significantly 
effective to counter the influence of large campaign donors.  Six in ten also favor a plan to provide a six‐to‐one 
match for small donations up to $150 as well as large grants for media ads to candidates who agree to not take 
any donations over $1,000. The source of the funds would be a small charge on large federal contractors.  
Respondents also evaluated a similar proposal for matching small donations, except this one would be funded by 
government funds; this proposal was opposed by a large majority.  
 
Prohibiting One‐on‐One Fundraising by Members of Congress 
A majority, with Republicans divided, favors a proposal to prohibit Members of Congress from personally asking 
for donations; though speaking at fundraising events would still be allowed.  However, there was little optimism 
that this prohibition would be effective in offsetting the influence of big campaign donors. 
Public Funding of Presidential Campaigns 
In light of the fact that the Federal program for providing public funding for presidential campaigns has not been 
used by any presidential candidates for some time, a large majority supported ending it and directing the unused 
funds to pediatric research or deficit reduction

 4 

PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

 

FINDINGS 
 

Perceived Importance of Offsetting Big Campaign Donors   
Overwhelming bipartisan majorities see it as important to reduce or counterbalance the influence of 
big campaign donors on the Federal government. 
  
At the beginning of the survey, respondents were told that they would be considering a number of 
proposals that would have the goal to “reduce or counterbalance the influence of big campaign 
donors—including special interests, corporations 
and wealthy people—on the Federal 
government.”  Respondents were asked how 
important this goal was to them.   
 
An overwhelming majority of 88% said that it was 
important (60% very).  Just 12% said it was 
slightly (9%) or not at all (3%) important.   Eighty 
four percent of Republicans and 92% of 
Democrats said that this was very or somewhat 
important.  However, Democrats were 
substantially more likely to say it was very 
important (72%) than were Republicans (49%).    
 
Constitutional Amendment to Allow Limits on Campaign Funding 
A very large bipartisan majority would favor a Constitutional amendment that would effectively 
overturn the ‘Citizens United’ decision by allowing Congress and the states to regulate and set 
reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others who seek to 
influence elections. They would also be able to distinguish between people and corporations or other 
organizations, thus allowing legislators to restrict or prohibit corporations and other organizations 
from spending money to influence elections. Large majorities believe this would be effective in 
offsetting the influence of big campaign donors. 
  
Respondents were told that in order for Congress to limit all forms of campaign‐related donations, a 
new Constitutional amendment would be required to override the Supreme Court’s past decisions on 
this subject, including ‘Citizens United,’ and prevent the courts from striking down campaign finance 
laws in the future. 
 
 They were presented the amendment in two parts, with the first part presented as follows: 
 
The proposed Constitutional amendment would say Congress and the states may regulate and 
set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others seeking to 
influence elections. 
 
Presented with an argument in favor of this part of the amendment, a large bipartisan majority found it 
convincing (81%), including 75% of Republicans and 87% Democrats. 
 

 AMERICANS EVALUATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM PROPOSALS 

5 

 

 
Presented with an argument against this proposal, less than half (47%) found it convincing. Republicans 
were much more likely to find it convincing (56%) than Democrats (38%). 
Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United

Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United

Congress May Regulate Campaign Financing (Part 1)
Pro Argument:

Congress May Regulate Campaign Financing (Part 1)
Con Argument:

Clearly, we cannot go on letting people and organizations use
the cover of the First Amendment to allow what is essentially
bribery of Members of Congress. Since the recent Supreme
Court decision to allow unlimited contributions, there has been
a flood of money pouring into organizations seeking to
influence elections. The rich should not have more influence
just because they have more money. They are drowning out
the voice of most ordinary voters. The Founders would be
horrified by the amount of money in elections and this is just
the kind of problem that they established the Constitutional
amendment process to address. Congress should be able to
set reasonable limits on political spending. 

This proposal is an end run around Constitutional principles—
practically an attempt to repeal the First Amendment. If people
want to spend money making their views heard about a
candidate, the government should not have the right to stop
them. Should we assume that the government knows what the
right amount of free speech is? Real freedom of speech is
often inconvenient for somebody. You can’t just pick and
choose where you want it to apply. Tampering with the
Constitution is a risky idea. Once you start limiting some forms
of speech it becomes a slippery slope toward more and more
limits on our freedoms.

 
When they were asked how acceptable this part 
of the constitutional amendment would be to 
them, just 20% found it unacceptable, including 
just 28% of Republicans and 13% of Democrats. 
64% of respondents found it acceptable with 
another 15% finding it ‘tolerable’.   
 
Respondents were then introduced to the second 
part of the proposed constitutional amendment 
which said that: 
 
… in writing campaign finance laws, 
Congress would have the right to treat 
corporations and other organizations 
differently from ‘natural persons.’ This would allow Congress to restrict or even prohibit 
corporations and other organizations from spending money to influence elections. 
 

 6 

PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

 

 
The argument in favor of the second part of the amendment was found convincing by 77% of 
respondents, including overwhelming majorities of Republicans (72%) and Democrats (83%).  
 
The argument against, on the other hand, was not as well‐received, just 37% of respondents found it 
convincing, including 45% of Republicans and 29% of Democrats.  
 
Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United

Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United

Treating Corporations Differently (Part 2)
Pro Argument:
A corporation should not have the same rights as a person. The
idea that it is a group of people expressing their point of view is a
fallacy. All of the people who are part of the corporation do not
necessarily share a single point of view. A corporation is created
to perform a function or to make money. It does not have the right
to vote. Pursuing political influence through campaign-related
donations in the service of a corporation’s goals is not something
the Constitution was ever meant to protect. If the individuals
associated with a corporation want to express a point of view or
donate to a campaign, they are still free to do so.

Treating Corporations Differently (Part 2)
Con Argument:
People have the right to come together and become
shareholders in a corporation. As shareholders they have a
shared interest in the goals of the corporation. Thus, the
corporation should have the same rights of free expression as do
the individual shareholders. The fact that they are also seeking to
make money should not make any difference. Making a
Constitutional amendment that would restrict the freedom of
shareholders to act together would subvert the underlying
principles of the Constitution. Furthermore, some of the
corporations that would be limited by this law are nonprofit
corporations that serve good causes and should not be

 
When they were asked how acceptable they 
found this part of the constitutional amendment, 
just 20% found it unacceptable, including just 
26% of Republicans and 13% of Democrats. On 
the other hand, 66% of respondents found it 
acceptable with another 13% finding it 
‘tolerable’.   
 

 AMERICANS EVALUATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM PROPOSALS 

7 

 

 
In the end, respondents were asked if their Member of Congress should vote in favor or against this two‐
part constitutional amendment. A clear bipartisan majority of 75% came out in favor, including 66% of 
Republicans and 85% of Democrats.  

 
 
 

 

 8 

PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

 

 
Increasing Disclosure Requirements for Political Donations  
Overwhelming bipartisan majorities approved a variety of proposals requiring greater disclosure of 
campaign‐related donations. Large majorities believed that such requirements would be effective at 
offsetting the influence of large donors.  These proposals included: 
 
 requiring that all individuals or organizations that donate or receive a total of $10,000 or more 
for campaign‐related activities promptly register with the FEC, have their name and the 
amount of the donations listed on the Commission’s website;  
 requiring that independent campaign‐related expenditures by corporations, unions, and other 
groups promptly report such spending to shareholders, members, and the general public, as 
well as the FEC;  
 requiring that names of significant donors paying for TV or radio ads in support of candidates 
or related to controversial issues be publicly disclosed;  
 requiring donors using credit cards to provide the address in which they are registered to vote 
in the US, to get the CVV on all online donations, and to get and report the address of all credit 
card donors, not just those giving $50 or more as currently required by law.   
 
Respondents were presented the broader idea of increasing disclosure requirements for political 
donations as follows:   
 
…(an) idea for reducing or counterbalancing the influence of big donors is to require that 
donations to candidates and political causes be publicly disclosed or made more transparent. 
  
While many forms of campaign‐related donations and spending are required to be publicly 
disclosed, there are donations that can be made anonymously to certain organizations that can  
support candidates and political causes. Critics of this kind of giving call it ‘dark money’ because it 
is anonymous. 
  
Until recently, the amount that could be donated to such organizations was limited, but with the 
U.S. Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision, these limits were removed as an interference 
with free speech. Since then, the amount of such anonymous donations has gone up 
dramatically. 
  
There are a number of proposals for requiring that such donations be publicly disclosed. There is 
also a debate about whether there should be greater public disclosure of campaign‐related 
donations. 
 
Before being presented specific proposals for addressing this issue, respondents were first presented 
two general arguments in favor of and two general arguments against increasing disclosure of campaign‐
related contributions and activities.  
 
The arguments in favor of greater disclosure did very well with more than 8 in 10 respondents finding 
both pro arguments convincing. 

 AMERICANS EVALUATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM PROPOSALS 

9 

 
Greater Public Disclosure of
Campaign-Related Donations

Greater Public Disclosure of
Campaign-Related Donations

Pro Argument 1:
When campaign-related donations are fully disclosed, it makes it
more difficult for elected officials to do favors, taking actions that
serve the interests of the donor, rather than the common good. If
the donation is disclosed, the public, the media, and watchdog
groups can question whether an action was a favor in exchange
for a donation. This will create political costs for the elected official
as well as discourage donors from seeking favors through
donations.

Pro Argument 2:
When judging a candidate people have a right to know
who is providing money in support of the candidate.
Voters can get a better sense of the allegiances that the
candidate might have and the interests they might
support.

  
Respondents were less convinced by arguments opposed to increasing disclosures. Only one was found 
convincing by a (slight) majority, while the other was found convincing by just four in ten.  Republicans 
were substantially more convinced than Democrats.  
Greater Public Disclosure of
Campaign-Related Donations

Greater Public Disclosure of
Campaign-Related Donations

Con Argument 1:
Making a campaign donation has been established by the U.S.
Supreme Court as a basic right as part of the principle of free
speech. If every donation is subject to public scrutiny, it can lead
to claims that it was basically a bribe, when in fact it might not be
at all. People may also get harassed or threatened for making
donations. This will discourage people from making such
donations, including completely legitimate ones.

Con Argument 2:
Public disclosure is not going to prevent elected officials from
doing favors in exchange for financial support. Even if elected
officials are, in fact, taking a position to serve the interests of a
donor (in exchange for support), the officials can simply say that
they think the position is the right one--and there’s no way to
prove they don’t think that. Furthermore, in some cases the
politician may genuinely support the position. Disclosure will not
clarify what’s really going on.

 10 

PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

 

 
Disclosing Names of Large Donors for Campaign‐Related Efforts 
Turning to the specific reform proposals for greater disclosure, respondents were told:  
 
Currently, all donations made directly to campaigns must be made public, but there is no 
requirement for a variety of organizations that spend money on campaign‐related efforts to 
disclose the names of their donors and the amounts donated. 
 
 They then evaluated a proposal requiring that when donors make a contribution of at least $10,000 
they must immediately register with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and have their name and the 
amount of the donations listed on the Commission’s website.  This proposal is based on the Disclose Act 
(HR 1134) sponsored by Rep. David Cicilline. 
 
An overwhelming and bipartisan majority said they would recommend that their Member vote in favor 
of the proposal.  Democrats were somewhat more likely to take this position (88%) than Republicans 
(77%). 
 
There was substantial optimism that this measure would be effective.  Asked, “How effective do you 
think this proposal, if enacted, would likely be in reducing or counterbalancing the influence of big  
campaign donors,” 65% said they   thought it would be effective (very 19%).  Democrats were more 
likely to believe it would be effective (73%, very 23%) than Republicans (58%, very 15%). 

 
Independent Campaign‐Related Activity By Corporations, Unions and Other Groups 
Respondents were told that, “currently, when corporations, unions, and other groups spend money on 
their own campaign‐related activity, such as running a TV ad that is supportive of a candidate, they do 
not have to report it.”  They were then presented a proposal requiring these groups to:  




report campaign‐related spending to their shareholders and members; 
make such information available to the public on their websites; and 
report such information to the FEC. 

 

This proposal is also based on the Disclose Act (HR 1134). 
 

 AMERICANS EVALUATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM PROPOSALS 

11 

 

 
An overwhelmingly bipartisan majority (85%) recommended that their Member of Congress vote 
favorably on this proposal (85%).  Minimal partisan differences existed, with 83% of Republicans 
recommending a favorable vote and 88% of Democrats. 

 
Here too there was optimism that this measure would be effective “in reducing or counterbalancing the 
influence of big campaign donors.”  Two thirds (65%) said they thought it would be effective (very 20%). 
Democrats were slightly more likely to believe it would be effective (69%, very 22%) than Republicans 
(63%, very 21%). 
 

Donors Who Support Independent TV and Radio Ads 
Respondents were informed that individuals spending their own money on campaign‐related TV or radio 
ads are not required to report that information. They were then presented a proposal saying that, “the 
Federal Communications Commission would require the public disclosure of the names of significant 
donors in paying for TV or radio ads in support of candidates or related to controversial public issues.” 
This proposal is based on HR 1134 by Rep. Ben Lujan and HR 1439 by Rep. David Cicilline.  
 
Eight in ten (81%) recommended that their Member of Congress vote in favor of this proposal, including 
74% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats. Once again, they were optimistic about how effective this 
would be. Asked, “How effective do you think this proposal, if enacted, would likely be in reducing or  
 

 12 

PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

 

 
counterbalancing the influence of big campaign donors,” 62% said they thought it would be effective 
(very 18%). Republicans were less likely to believe the proposal would be effective (54%, very 11%) than 
Democrats (71%, very 24%). 
 
Respondents were also presented an alternative proposal that could be enacted by the President if 
Congress failed to pass the former disclosure proposals. Under this proposal, the “President could 
require federal contractors to publicly disclose their donations to groups that spend money on 
campaign‐related activities.” This was based on an Executive Order that President Obama proposed at 
one point but never enacted.  
 
An overwhelmingly bipartisan majority (85%) recommended their Member of Congress vote in favor of 
this proposal, including 84% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats.  
 
Asked, “How effective do you think this proposal, if enacted, would likely be in reducing or 
counterbalancing the influence of big campaign donors?” 63% said they thought it would be effective 
(very 18%).  

 
Online Credit Card Donations 
Respondents were given the following information about two bills in Congress that address online credit 
card donations: HR 1341 by Rep. Paul Gosar and S 1660 by Sen. Amy Klobuchar. 
 
Currently, there is a bill in Congress that proponents say will reduce the possibility of illegal 
online donations to Federal campaigns made by foreigners, in excess of legal limits, or with 
stolen credit cards. Opponents say there is no evidence these are real problems and that the 
proposed solutions discourage people from making donations. 
 
They were informed that, “it is illegal for foreign sources—individuals or organizations—to make 
contributions to US campaigns.  However, Americans living abroad may make such donations.” 
 
Respondents were then presented two proposals related to credit‐card donations.  They first evaluated 
each one separately and then the bill as a whole. 
 

 AMERICANS EVALUATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM PROPOSALS 

13 

 

 
The first proposal requires, “that donors to Federal campaigns who make online credit card donations 
from abroad are not only US citizens, but also registered voters and that they provide their US voting 
address.” 
 
Given an argument in favor of this proposal emphasizing the potential for foreigners making illegal 
donations, an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority (82%) found it convincing.  Responses between 
Republicans (83%) and Democrats (81%) were practically the same. Less than half of respondents (43%) 
found the counter argument convincing.  More Democrats found it convincing (47%) than Republicans 
(38%). Similarly, significantly more people in very blue districts (51%) found it convincing than in very red 
districts (36%).   
 
Online Credit Card Donations: Donations from Abroad
Pro Argument
We need to ensure that foreigners are not influencing our Federal
election process by making illegal contributions. If online credit card
donors are required to provide the billing address and the CVV code
of the credit cards they are using, it will be harder for foreign sources
to make campaign donations. If a foreign source gives a false U.S.
address, the CVV code would help identify this misinformation. 

 
 Respondents were then presented with the 
details of the proposal and asked to rate its 
acceptability on a 0‐10 scale. Just 14% found it 
unacceptable, with 86% finding it acceptable 
(73%), or tolerable (13%). Republicans found it 
just as unacceptable (12%) as Democrats (13%), 
nearly twice as many independents (21%) found 
it unacceptable.  
Turning to the second proposal, respondents 
were first informed that: “Currently, when 
campaigns receive donations of $50 or more, 
they are required to get the donor’s address, but 
this is not required if donations are under $50.”  

Online Credit Card Donations: Donations from Abroad
Con Argument
This bill is a solution without a problem. The Federal Election
Commission has not reported any significant problem of online
credit cards being used by foreign sources to make illegal
contributions. The bill would create a new limitation on
Americans living abroad by requiring that they be currently
registered to vote and have a US address—something that
people living abroad may not be able to do.

 14 

PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

 

 
They were then presented the proposal that would: 
 ...require that when campaigns get online credit card donations: 
 in all cases, including those under $50, they must get and report the donor’s address, 
 they must also always get the CVV code on the credit card. 
 
For the argument in favor of this proposal, a large bipartisan majority found it convincing (79%).  There 
were no real differences between Republicans (80%) and Democrats (79%). 
 

Presented a counter argument, less than half‐‐44%‐‐ found it convincing. Republicans were less likely to 
find it convincing (41%) than Democrats who were more divided (48%). 
 
Online Credit Card Donations:

Online Credit Card Donations:

Requiring More Extensive Reporting - Pro Argument #1
This proposal will help prevent campaign donors from
evading federal election laws that limit how much an
individual can give to a campaign. By making numerous
campaign donations under $50 an individual can exceed
those limits without being detected. By requiring all online
credit card donors to give their address, it will make it easier
to detect when someone exceeds legal campaign limits.

Requiring More Extensive Reporting - Con Argument #2
There is no evidence that people are making numerous small
online credit card donations to get around limits. Campaign
donors making credit card donations already have to provide
the name on the credit card and these donations are
processed by campaign staff, who track and ensure donations
are consistent with the laws. This proposed law simply
discourages donations by small donors who don’t like giving
out personal information for fear that it might be stolen or
misused.

 
 

Respondents were then given another set of arguments focusing on the potential for the use of stolen 
credit cards. The pro argument was found convincing by an overwhelming 86%, with the same level of 
support from Republicans and Democrats. The counter argument found more division, with 52% finding 
it convincing. Republicans were fairly evenly divided with Democrats leaning toward being convinced 
(56%). 
 

 

 AMERICANS EVALUATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM PROPOSALS 

15 

 

 
Online Credit Card Donations
Requiring More Extensive Reporting - Pro Argument #2
By requiring that people give the CVV code on the card, it
makes it harder for people to use a stolen credit card. Hackers
can often get credit card numbers that can then be used to
make credit card donations, but if the CVV code is required,
then that won’t work because they would have to have the card
itself. This creates greater protection.

Online Credit Card Donations:
Requiring More Extensive Reporting - Con Argument #2
In fact, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has reported few
cases of people using stolen credit cards for making campaign
donations. That’s because it would not make sense to do so. If a
stolen credit card number is used, banks will find out and the
campaign will have to return the funds.

 
The details of the bill as a whole were presented 
and respondents were asked to rate its 
acceptability. Overall, 84% found it acceptable 
(72%) or tolerable (12%) with just 15% finding it 
unacceptable.  
 
Unacceptability was similar between 
Republicans (13%) and Democrats (16%). Once 
again, independents were the most likely to find 
it unacceptable (19%). 
 
Respondents were then presented with “broader 
arguments” for and against the bill as a whole. 
The first argument was against the bill and was 
found convincing by 50% of respondents. There 
were slight partisan differences, with fewer Republicans finding it convincing (48%) than Democrats 
(53%).   
 
Presented with a counter argument in favor of the bill, a large bipartisan majority (82%) found it 
convincing, including 86% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats. 
 
 
 

 16 

PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

 
Online Credit Card Donations: Critique of Bill
Con Argument
What this bill really does is impose costly and burdensome
reporting requirements on campaigns, especially ones that rely
on small donors. It discourages people from donating because
giving their address and CVV code increases the likelihood that
this information will be hacked and used to steal their identity. It
also makes it more complicated for Americans living abroad to
make donations, because they have to be registered to vote and
have a US address they can provide.

Online Credit Card Donations: Defense of Bill
Pro Argument
It is reasonable to require that people provide their address and
their CVV code: people do it all the time when they are making an
online purchase, so they should be willing to do it when making a
campaign contribution. It may not be the perfect solution to all the
possible misuses of credit cards, but it does provide greater
protection.

 
Respondents were then presented all of the proposals in the bill at once, saying that it would require 
that: 
 when campaigns get online credit card donations, in all cases, including those under $50, they 
must get and report the donor’s address; 
 campaigns must also get from online credit card donations the CVV code on the credit card; 
 donors who make online credit card donations from abroad be a registered voter in the US and 
provide their US voting address. 
 
Finally, they were asked whether they would 
recommend their Member of Congress vote in 
favor of or against the bill.  Eight in ten 
respondents (79%) recommended that their 
Member of Congress vote in favor. Republicans 
were more likely to take this position (85%) than 
Democrats (77%).  
 
There was a significant difference between 
districts with very red districts (84%) being more 
supportive than very blue districts (71%). 
 
 
 

 AMERICANS EVALUATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM PROPOSALS 

17 

 
 
 

Promoting Donations by Small Donors                                                                                                             
Respondents evaluated several proposals that seek to offset the influence of big campaign donors by 
promoting more donations by small donors. Six in ten favor a proposal to promote donations by small 
donors by providing a tax credit for donations limited to $50 per candidate.  However, less than half 
believe that it will be significantly effective to counter the influence of large campaign donors.  Six in 
ten also favor a plan to provide a six‐to‐one match for small donations up to $150 as well as large 
grants for media ads to candidates who agree to not take any donations over $1,000. The source of 
the funds would be a small charge on large federal contractors.  Respondents also evaluated a similar 
proposal for matching small donations, except this one would be funded by government funds; this 
proposal was opposed by a large majority.  
Respondents were presented a set of proposals to reduce or counter‐balance the influence of big donors 
by reducing the percentage of donations that come from big donors and increasing the percentage that 
comes from small donors. These proposals are based on provisions in S 1538 (sponsored by Sen. Dick 
Durbin) and HR 50 (sponsored by Rep. John Sarbanes). 
 
Tax Credits for Small Donations by Small Donors  
Respondents were first presented a proposal from both SB1538 and HB 50 based on the idea that “by 
reducing the cost of making donations, more citizens will make donations and small donors will make 
somewhat larger donations, thus increasing the total amount coming from small donors.” More 
specifically the proposal was:   
 
When a citizen contributes up to $50 to a specific candidate, half of the contribution would be 
refundable in the form of a tax credit. This would be limited to small donors, which would be 
people whose donations to that candidate are no more than $300.  
 
The argument in favor was found convincing by a large, bipartisan majority (70%), including two‐thirds 
of Republicans and three‐fourths of Democrats. 
 
 

 

 18 

PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

 

 
Presented an argument against this proposal, a similarly large bipartisan majority found it convincing 
(68%), including seven‐in‐ten Republicans and two‐thirds of Democrats. 
Tax Credit for Small Donors

Tax Credit for Small Donors

Pro Argument:

Con Argument:

Campaigns cost money. If we encourage many small donors and
increase the portion of money coming from small donations, this
can free candidates from reliance on a few large donors and make
them less influential. Congress will then be responsible to voters,
not well-financed special interests. Candidates who do not want to
be beholden to big donors will be more able to run for office and
succeed.

Giving away tax credits to increase the amount of money from
small donors effectively spends government funds on election
campaigns. This is not a good use of taxpayer money.
Furthermore, it is not clear that it will even work. Big donors will
still have a lot more influence than small donors, even if the small
donors are more numerous or are able to give a little bit more than
they are now.

 
Asked for their final recommendation, six in ten recommended that their Member of Congress vote in 
favor of this proposal. For Republicans, a more modest majority was in favor (53%), while among 
Democrats, two‐thirds recommended the proposal. 
 
Asked how effective this proposal would be in reducing or counterbalancing the influence of big 
campaign donors, a relatively modest 39% said they thought it would be effective, including 33% of 
Republicans and 44% of Democrats. 
 

 

 

 AMERICANS EVALUATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM PROPOSALS 

19 

 

 
Providing a Six to One Match for Small Donations 
Two proposals were presented for matching small donations to different samples.  Though the proposals 
were quite similar, the response was very different.   
 

The ‘Durbin’ Plan   
The proposal for increasing the percentage of donations that come from small donors from Sen Durbin’s 
S1,538 was presented as follows: 
 
The idea is to create a program that provides financial support to US Senate candidates who 
agree to limit their fundraising to small donors. Here is how it would work: 
  

A candidate who chooses to participate must: 
 agree not to take donations of more than $150 from any donor for an election. 
 demonstrate their viability as a candidate by raising a substantial number of small 
donations from in‐state donors. 
  

The candidate would then receive additional funds as follows: 
 a six‐to‐one match of each small donation (e.g. if someone were to make a 
donation of $100, the candidate would receive an additional $600) 
 a grant and credits for media ads, totaling approximately $1‐$14 million, 
depending on the population of their state 
  
The program would be funded by a new fee paid by companies who do large contract work for 
the federal government. They would be charged a fee of 0.5% on the amount of each contract 
over $10 million. 
 

When asked to evaluate pro and con arguments, the argument in favor was found convincing by an 
overwhelming 80% of respondents including 75% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats. The argument 
against did much less well with only a slight majority of 52% finding it convincing, including 58% of 
Republicans and just 48% of Democrats.   
 

 

 20 

PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

 

 
Government Matching Small Donations
(Durbin Plan)

Government Matching Small Donations
(Durbin Plan)

Pro Argument:
By limiting Senate candidates to small donors, big donors will
have less influence on the Senators once they are in office.
Rather than spending much of their time trying to woo big
donors they will spend more time getting to know a wider range
of people in their state. Senators will then be more likely to be
responsive to their constituents, as a whole, not just wellfinanced special interests. Candidates who do not want to be
beholden to big donors will be more able to run for office and
succeed. This program won’t add to the deficit and will improve
the quality of American democracy.

Con Argument:
While the program would be funded by charging a fee to federal
contractors, they would simply add that cost to their contract; so
taxpayers would still end up paying for it. Giving money to any
Senate candidate—just because they have a substantial following of
small donors—won’t necessarily produce good candidates. This will
give fringe candidates who are not electable a government-funded
platform for furthering their extreme ideas. Finally, ideas like this
have
been tried in some states and there’s no clear evidence they
 
have diminished the influence of special interests.

 
Respondents were then presented with the 
details of the proposal and asked to rate its 
acceptability. Just 22% found it unacceptable, 
with 78% finding it acceptable (56%), or tolerable 
(22%). Republicans found it almost twice as 
unacceptable (29%) as Democrats (16%), with 
independents in the middle (20%). Ultimately, six 
in ten supported their Member of Congress 
voting in support of the proposal, including 58% 
of Republicans and 73% of Democrats. 
 
 

 

 AMERICANS EVALUATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM PROPOSALS 

21 

 

 
The ‘Sarbanes’ Plan 
A different sample of respondents evaluated another proposal from Congress: H.R. 20. Like S 1538, H.R. 
20 provides a six to one match to candidates for each small donation to their campaign. However, the 
source of the funds would be general government 
revenues rather than a special charge on federal 
contractors. Also, the limit on the amount the 
candidate can get from a particular donor is 
$1,000 rather than $150 as in S 1538.   
  
Asked for their final recommendation, support 
was far lower than for S 1538. Just 28% favored it 
with 72% opposed. Among Republicans, 82% 
were opposed as were 63% of Democrats.  Asked 
how acceptable the idea was, a very large 63% 
gave it an unacceptable rating, including 74% of 
Republicans and 51% of Democrats. 
 
 
 
 

 

 22 

PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

 

 
Prohibiting One‐on‐One Fundraising by Members of Congress 
A majority, with Republicans divided, favors a proposal to prohibit Members of Congress from 
personally asking for donations; though speaking at fundraising events would still be 
allowed.  However, there was little optimism that this prohibition would be effective in offsetting the 
influence of big campaign donors. 
Respondents were presented with another proposal seeking to reduce the influence of big donors on 
politicians based on the HR 528, also known as the Stop Act sponsored by Rep. Brendan Boyle.  
 
According to this proposal: 
 
Members of Congress would be prohibited from personally asking a donor for money at any 
time. It allows them to attend and speak at fundraising events, but prohibits direct one‐on‐one 
appeals for donations. 
 
A large bipartisan majority (71%) found convincing the argument in favor of this proposal, including 70% 
of Republicans and 73% of Democrats. However, nearly as many (67%) found the argument against it 
convincing, with this same percentage among Republicans and Democrats. 
 
 

Constraining Direct Fundraising
by Members of Congress

Constraining Direct Fundraising
by Members of Congress

Pro Argument:

Con Argument:

Members spend more time fundraising than doing their job. If all
Members were to do less fundraising there would probably be less
money going into campaigns in general, which would be good.
Furthermore, when the Members themselves do the fundraising it is
most likely to lead to implicit understandings--with winks and nods-that the Members will do favors for the donor.

Imposing limits on the fundraising activities of Members of Congress
would give an unfair advantage to challengers who would not have
the same limits. Enforcing it would be nearly impossible.
Furthermore, limiting their right to ask for a donation is a violation of
 the freedom of speech of Members of Congress and would probably
be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

 
Asked, “How effective do you think this proposal, if enacted, would likely be in reducing or 
counterbalancing the influence of big campaign donors,” just 39% said they thought it would be 
effective (very 8%). Republicans were a bit less likely to think it would be effective (34%, very 7%) than 
Democrats (42%, very 9%). 
 

 AMERICANS EVALUATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM PROPOSALS 

23 

 

 
Asked to rate the proposal’s acceptability, seven in 
ten found it acceptable (50%) or tolerable (21%), 
while just three in ten (29%) found it unacceptable. 
Republicans were slightly more likely to find it 
unacceptable (31%) than Democrats (28%). 
 
Finally, a majority (55%) recommended that their 
Member of Congress vote in favor of this 
proposal.  For Republicans this was a bare majority 
(51%), while Democrats it was nearly six in ten 
(58%). 
 

 

 24 

PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

 

 
Public Funding of Presidential Campaigns 
In light of the fact that the Federal program for providing public funding for presidential campaigns 
has not been used by any presidential candidates for some time, a large majority supported ending it 
and directing the unused funds to pediatric research or deficit reduction. 
Respondents were first presented the following information about the current federal program to fund 
presidential campaigns: 
 
As you may know, in the 1970’s, the federal government established a program to make 
presidential campaigns less dependent on private contributions by providing them government 
funds. Presidential campaigns receive these funds, though, only if they agree to limit the total 
amount of money they spend in their campaign, and the amount of money they get from private 
sources. The program is funded by taxpayers, who check a box on their IRS tax forms directing $3 
to the fund for this purpose. Contributing to the fund does not increase an individual’s taxes or 
reduce any refund they are owed. 
  
For some time, all major presidential candidates adhered to the spending limits and received the 
funding. With time, though, some candidates found they could raise so much more money 
through private sources that they chose not to accept the limits on their spending, even though 
they would have to forego the public funds. By the 2016 election, all of the major candidates 
chose to exceed the spending limits, foregoing the public funds. Thus, the fund has been rarely 
used and now has nearly $300 million available. 
 
There were then presented a proposal for ending this program based on HR 133: 
  

The legislation proposes to end the Federal program providing public support for presidential 
campaigns. The $3 check off on taxpayers’ IRS forms would be ended and the unused funds 
would be directed to pediatric research or deficit reduction. 
 
The argument in favor did very well with 82% of respondents finding it convincing including 90% of 
Republicans and 75% of Democrats. The argument against was found convincing by a substantial albeit 
smaller majority of 60%.  Partisan differences were strong with slightly less than half of Republicans 
finding it convincing compared to seven in ten Democrats.   
 
 

 AMERICANS EVALUATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM PROPOSALS 

25 

 

 
Redirecting Public Funding of Presidential Campaigns

Redirecting Public Funding of Presidential Campaigns

Pro Argument:
This program for public funding of presidential campaigns is
clearly not working. The amount of private money flowing into the
leading campaigns keeps going up. The only candidates using the
public funds are ones who do not have a remote chance of
winning. Furthermore, the whole idea of using taxpayer’s money
to subsidize presidential campaigns is a dubious idea to begin
with. It’s simply welfare for presidential candidates. It would be
better for these tax dollars to go to something like pediatric
research or deficit reduction.

Con Argument:
It is critical that we limit the corrupting power of campaign
donors in presidential races. Public financing can play a key role
in counterbalancing their influence. For many years, this
program was effective in helping presidential candidates be less
dependent on big campaign donors and limiting the role of big
money. It’s true the current system is having some problems.
But it can be fixed through raising the limits and making them
more realistic in the current environment. We cannot wave the
flag of surrender and let big special interests dominate elections
 and ultimately our government. We need to fix the program, not
throw it out.

 
In the end, asked how their Member of Congress 
should vote, two‐thirds said they should vote in 
favor of eliminating the program for public 
financing of presidential campaigns, including 
79% of Republicans and 53% of Democrats.   
 

 Voice Of the People is a non-partisan organization that seeks to re-anchor our
democracy in its founding principles by giving ‘We the People’ a greater role in
government. VOP furthers the use of innovative methods and technology to give
the American people a more effective voice in the policymaking process.
VOP is working to urge Congress to take these new methods to scale so that
Members of Congress have a large, scientifically-selected, representative sample
of their constituents—called a Citizen Cabinet—to be consulted on current issues
and providing a voice that accurately reflects the values and priorities of their
district or state.

The Program for Public Consultation seeks to improve democratic governance by
consulting the citizenry on key public policy issues governments face. It has
developed innovative survey methods that simulate the process that policymakers
go through—getting a briefing, hearing arguments, dealing with tradeoffs—
before coming to their conclusion. It also uses surveys to help find common
ground between conflicting parties. The Program for Public Consultation is part
of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project is supported by generous grants from the Democracy Fund, Hewlett
Foundation and the Circle Foundation.
This survey was fielded by Nielsen Scarborough, with thanks to Scott Willoth and
Neil Schwartz. Gail Hoffman and Allison Stettler managed communications with
the press assistance from Francesca Martens and Evan Lewitus. Allison Stettler
managed the design and production of the report.