Bad polling muddies waters

This commentary is in response to the recent public opinion poll conducted by the Bangor Daily News, WCSH 6 Portland and Maine Public Broadcasting. The simplistically designed poll was intended to gauge public sentiment regarding how to best resolve the state’s complicated budget crisis.

Unfortunately, the poll’s inadequate design does not foster meaningful discourse in addressing the very complicated issue of Maine’s budget deficit. Further, the way in which the polling results were published has done a disservice to the electorate, policy makers, and the landmark campaign finance reform measure, the Maine Clean Elections Act. The poll, designed by RKM presented thirteen choices for potential budget cuts and asked participants to choose three to cut. Funding the Clean Elections Act was pitted against cutting K- 12 education, Medicaid, and social programs to name a few.

A Sept. 12 article in the Bangor Daily News by Jeff Tuttle titled, “Poll finds support for budget cuts,” stated that 22 percent of respondents favored cutting the public financing of the Clean Elections Act while 31 percent favor across the board spending cuts.

The Bangor Daily News could have stated that even though with limited choices contained in our poll to cut the state budget deficit, 78 percent of respondents favored protecting the landmark Clean Elections option. That would have been newsworthy.

Respondents were asked “in an effort to close the budget shortfall which of the following programs would you cut?” Choose three. Cutting the Clean Elections Act was presented as “public financing for political campaigns.” Conversely, the question supposedly pertaining to the governor’s BETR (Business Equipment Tax Reimbursement) program was cutting “tax incentives to promote business expansion.”

The response would have been different if the question about BETR had been worded, “giving tax breaks to corporations,” and if the question about public financing had been worded “to reduce the influence of special interests on Maine’s politicians.”

For the record, taxpayer support for the Clean Elections Act is .03 of one percent of the $5.4 billion budget. Supporting the Clean Elections Act in its entirety cost a Maine voter about the price of a small cup of coffee once a year. In contrast, the BETR program will cost almost $50 million in FY 2002. BETR is the single fastest growing line item in our budget.

What most poll participants probably did not know, but the poll designers did, is that the Clean Elections Fund was raided for $4 million last year, and it has been proposed by Governor King to take another 2.5 million from the fund this year. The Maine Citizen Leadership Fund forecasts that with full participation by gubernatorial candidates in 2006, the fund will not have enough money to meet its obligations. As poll designers knew, cutting more funds from Clean Elections won’t get you very far.

Indeed, if the fund was eliminated in its entirety, against the distinct will of the voters and 78 percent of poll respondents, it would be the smallest of teaspoons in the ocean that has become our state’s deficit.

Our Clean Elections Act is a national campaign finance reform landmark. In the 2000 election cycle Clean Elections was responsible for removing half of the private money from our electoral process. In 2002, with the participation rate at 61 percent for all legislative candidates, the influence of private money will be further diminished.

Clean Elections saves taxpayers’ money by freeing legislators to vote their conscience instead of voting in favor of the special interest donors to their campaign. The reason that special interest groups make political contributions and employ lobbyists is to influence policies that affect their bottom line. It’s about profit pure and simple. Make no mistake; it will be taxpayers and consumers who pay the bill in the end for flawed public policies influenced by special interest money.

Recently, Gov. King proposed delaying BETR reimbursements to corporations for six months in an effort to reign in our budget deficit. Chris Hall from the Maine Chamber and Business Alliance was undeservedly outraged. Surely delaying corporate welfare payments in this time of need is unwarranted. Perhaps the budget deficit is better addressed by cutting social service programs, adding more furlough days, or scaling back the state’s commitment to education even further.

When will these special interests explain to the taxpayers and the school board of South Portland why one major corporation in South Portland will be making a multi-million dollar profit off of its tax bill this year while local property tax mil rates skyrocket and the hole in the school budget continues to grow?

I hope that in the future the Bangor Daily News, WCSH 6 Portland and Maine Public Broadcasting design their polls and report on the results in a way that really helps to advance the political discourse and policy discussions regarding Maine’s fiscal crisis. For many years the citizens of this state have trusted in you to provide clarity and objectivity in framing responsible debate.

The public deserves better when it comes to polling. I hope that in the future you will design your polls with a little more sophistication and include questions that will really gauge public sentiment and further political discourse in an effort to offer real, substantive solutions to issues affecting Mainers. Questions that address reforming Maine’s arcane and inequitable tax code, broadening our tax base, and planning for sustainable, long term economic and community development would be particularly useful. Help us to find focus and clarity and refrain from muddying the waters.

Doug Clopp is Democracy Project Coordinator for the Maine Citizen Leadership Fund in Portland.