Hillary Should Quit Taking Money From Lobbyist w/Poll

Why should Hillary Clinton quit taking money from Lobbyist?  The reason is simple, americans don't like politicians to take money from lobbyist.  Whether or not the candidate is corrupt or not, taking money from Lobbyist is seen as benefiting special interest and not average voters.

Gallup recently did a poll on what voters think about politicians taking lobbyist money.

August 29, 2007
Most Say That Presidential Candidates Should Refuse Lobbyist Money
Majority says that Hillary Clinton should refuse

by Frank Newport and Joseph Carroll

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- The issue of accepting campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists has become a significant part of the current campaign strategy of Democratic candidates John Edwards and Barack Obama. Both have stated that they will not accept such contributions -- and both have criticized frontrunner Hillary Clinton for not taking the same pledge. As Edwards says on his campaign Web site: "John Edwards [has] challenged the entire Democratic Party to reform itself and end the practice of taking campaign money from Washington lobbyists."

New Gallup Poll data suggest that this has the potential to be an effective strategy for Edwards and Obama. It appears that presidential candidates are closely in tune with American public opinion when they decry the influence of lobbyists and vow to avoid taking lobbyist money. Asked about acceptable ways for candidates to raise money, more than three-quarters of Americans say that raising campaign money from contributions made by Washington lobbyists is unacceptable, putting it at the bottom of a list of six ways for raising money. Furthermore, two-thirds of Americans say that candidates who accept money from Washington lobbyists cannot change the way things are done in Washington, and overwhelming majorities say that candidates -- and Hillary Clinton in particular -- should not accept money from lobbyists.

Acceptable Ways to Raise Money

The Aug. 23-26, 2007 Gallup Panel survey asked Americans in several different ways to give their views on the acceptability of presidential candidates accepting money from lobbyists. In all instances, no matter how the question is asked, a large majority of Americans say that it is unacceptable.

One question sequence included in the poll asked Americans to rate how acceptable it would be for presidential candidates to raise money from six different sources. Accepting contributions from Washington lobbyists came in last on the list.

Thinking now about the different ways in which presidential candidates can finance their campaigns, do you think each of the following is an acceptable or unacceptable way for a presidential candidate to raise money for a campaign. How about money from -- [RANDOM ORDER]?

Here is what the poll said:

2007 Aug 23-26 (sorted by "desirable")
 Acceptable
 Unacceptable
 No opinion

 %
 %
 %

Individual contributions made by citizens
 93
 7
 

The candidate's own savings
 92
 7
 

Fundraisers who organize and collect large numbers of individual contributions on the candidate's behalf
 86
 13
 1

"PACs," or political action committees
 47
 47
 5

Public financing from the federal government
 41
 57
 2

Contributions made by Washington lobbyists
 23
 75
 1

* = Less than 0.5%

As can be seen, Americans overwhelmingly approve of candidates accepting money from individual citizens or from the candidates' own savings and wealth. There are mixed feelings about accepting money from PACs. A majority also say that public financing from the federal government is unacceptable. And, three-quarters say that accepting money from Washington lobbyists is unacceptable.

Republicans, independents, and Democrats do not differ significantly in their views of which ways are acceptable for presidential candidates to raise money for their campaigns.

The issue of accepting money from lobbyists has been more prominent in the discussions of the Democratic presidential contenders this year -- manifesting itself in particular in the pledges by Edwards and Obama not to accept such contributions. But, rank and file Democrats (26% say it is acceptable) are little different from Republicans (29%) in their views on this matter.

Specifics

A strong majority of Americans say that presidential candidates should refuse to take contributions from Washington lobbyists when they are asked about it directly.

The survey included two variants of questions on this issue. A random half of the sample was asked about a generic presidential candidate refusing to accept lobbyist contributions, while the other random half was asked directly whether or not Hillary Clinton should refuse to accept such contributions.

Eighty percent of Americans say that candidates for president (generically) should refuse to accept campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists; only 18% say it is okay to accept these donations.

Again, there is little difference between Republicans and Democrats on this question. Support for refusing to accept lobbyists' contributions is 75% among Republicans, 80% among Democrats, and 85% among independents.

The other random half sample was asked the question about accepting money from Washington lobbyists but with reference specifically to Clinton. The question included a reminder that two of Clinton's competitors for the Democratic nomination -- Edwards and Obama -- have made public statements that they refuse to accept campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists.

Here, 72% of Americans say that Clinton should refuse to accept money from lobbyists. This issue has become one that Clinton has found necessary to address directly. On Monday, she countered the criticisms from Edwards and Obama by saying that she has a long track record for fighting for different issues, in this case a national healthcare plan, without being influenced by special interests -- despite accepting lobbyist money.

Even Clinton's base supporters -- rank-and-file Democrats -- say the New York Senator should refuse to accept campaign contributions from lobbyists. Sixty-nine percent of Democrats say Clinton should refuse lobbyist contributions -- not much different than the 71% of Republicans and 75% of independents who share this point of view.

More broadly, Americans appear to agree with the argument put forth by Obama and Edwards that candidates who accept money from Washington lobbyists would not be able to change the way things are done in Washington should they be elected president.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to agree with this notion, suggesting it could be an effective theme for Obama and Edwards to pursue as they try to defeat the heavily favored Clinton for the party's nomination. Sixty-nine percent of Democrats say candidates who accept money from lobbyists would not be able to bring about change in Washington, while just 28% say they would. Among Republicans, 57% say candidates would not bring change to Washington, and 36% say they would. Independents' responses are very similar to Democrats' responses.

Survey Methods

Results for this panel study are based on telephone interviews with 1,001 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Aug. 23-26, 2007. Respondents were drawn from Gallup's household panel, which was originally recruited through random selection methods. The final sample is weighted so it is representative of U.S. adults nationwide. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

For results based on the 500 national adults in the Form A half-sample and 501 national adults in the Form B half-sample, the maximum margins of sampling error are ±5 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of 321 Republicans, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±6 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of 359 independents, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±6 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of 316 Democrats, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±6 percentage points.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

^ Back to Top  

 Rate This Material

not interesting
at all 1 2 3 4 5 extremely interesting

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28 543

Tags: Gallup Poll, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Lobbyinst (all tags)

Comments

37 Comments

Re: Hillary Should Quit Taking Money From Lobbyist

I don't care.

by lori 2007-08-29 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Should Quit Taking Money From Lobbyist

but other voters do.

by bruh21 2007-08-29 09:24AM | 0 recs
since they care about polls so

much it will be interesting to see what happens if Edwards keeps pushing this

by TarHeel 2007-08-29 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Should Quit Taking Money From Lobbyist

when it comes down to it, people will not make a choice about voting for Clinton on this issue.  I can't believe Edwards is still pushing this purity crap.  The man has no clue when to cut his losses and change course. It's just one more indication to me that he would not be a good president.  He has poor judgment.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-08-29 10:51AM | 0 recs
hypocrite.

absolutely. He is the typical two-faced hypocrite. I can't believe people still believe this guy is electable in general election.

by areyouready 2007-08-29 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Should Quit Taking Money From Lobbyist

Do you want Hillary working on behalf of lobbyists or consumers?

That's why you better care.

by DerekLarsson 2007-08-29 10:54AM | 0 recs
Seventy Percent of Americans Against Her

You have seventy percent of America on one side, and you have Clinton on the other side.  Any presidential candidate who is opposed by 70% of America on an issue, is skating on very thin ice.

A simple question for Lori and other Clinton supporters:  why should your candidate even risk losing the nomination over this?

She isn't taking the principled stand.
She isn't taking the progressive stand.

There is simply no rational reason for her to make this stand.  

by Demo37 2007-08-29 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Should Quit Taking Money From Lobbyist

Yes she should.

by DoIT 2007-08-29 08:48AM | 0 recs
felons

She should also return the money raised by wanted felons -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/29/ 1174/24972

by CardBoard 2007-08-29 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: felons

Obama should also return the money from wanted Felons , or have you forgotten Obama has received money from him too.

by lori 2007-08-29 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: felons

Obama took a donation of 2400 he is one of Hillary top ten fundraisers - there is a significant differince.  1 million + for Hillary.

But I am glad you think Hillary should return the money, now only if Howard Wolfson was able to see that there is a major problem here.

And yesterday you told me I had been debunked here and on dailykos - well hasn't the morning shown an interesting light?

by CardBoard 2007-08-29 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: felons

Oh so now its a case of yes my candidate is involved but someone else is more involved.

Reminds me of the republicans , blame everything on the Clintons.

The bottomline is Obama, Clinton , tester , kerry , sherrod brown , DNC , DSCC and other dems all have been making use of him as a fundraiser without knowing , what you did yesterday was insinuate it was only Clinton in your diary and you had to make several corrections in your statements and in your title.

If you are going to be focusing on Clinton alone without talking about Obama and the whole dem establishment then you would lose credibility.

by lori 2007-08-29 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: felons

By the way this is what Obama's Chieffundraiser said:

Orin Kramer, the chief-fundraiser for Barack Obama, praises Hsu:

"Forget the politics -- Norman is widely regarded as decent, and enormously generous," says Orin Kramer, a hedge-fund manager who is a chief fund-raiser for Barack Obama, the Illinois senator who is Mrs. Clinton's strongest rival for the party's presidential nomination.

Over the years other recipients of Hsu donations have included Sens. Dianne Feinstein, Barack Obama, Joe Biden , Tammy Duckworth , Jon Tester , John Kerry , Jon Cozine , Sherrod Brown and Ted Edward Kennedy , DSCC , DNC among others.

by lori 2007-08-29 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: felons

He is a HillRaiser enough said - one of her top ten donors

He is nothing but a donor, like thousands of others, to Obama.

They all should return the money, but Hillary by far has taken the most.

by CardBoard 2007-08-29 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: felons

" He is nothing but a donor, like thousands of others, to Obama "

Yeah right !!!

A known fundraiser for the whole dem establishment , below is what Obama's cheiffundraiser said about him in case you didn't read it before , so please spare me that line , if Obama could have scooped him to his side he would have done it .

Forget the politics -- Norman is widely regarded as decent, and enormously generous," says Orin Kramer, a hedge-fund manager who is a chief fund-raiser for Barack Obama, the Illinois senator who is Mrs. Clinton's strongest rival for the party's presidential nomination.

Over the years other recipients of Hsu donations have included Sens. Dianne Feinstein, Barack Obama, Joe Biden , Tammy Duckworth , Jon Tester , John Kerry , Jon Cozine , Sherrod Brown and Ted Edward Kennedy , DSCC , DNC among others.

by lori 2007-08-29 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: felons

Should she return the money raised by a wanted man?  Obama should

by CardBoard 2007-08-29 10:02AM | 0 recs
lol

okay then, your agenda is showing.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-08-29 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: lol

My agenda against ethically wrong fundraising?  I think they is well known

by CardBoard 2007-08-29 11:45AM | 0 recs
ahh hypocrisy

lol

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-08-29 10:41AM | 0 recs
Money From Lobbyist w/Poll

Why should she stop?  She's said it again.  

"Lobbyists represent real people."  But don't worry.  She said it herself, when she's in office she won't listen to them.

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-08-29 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Money From Lobbyist w/Poll

Some "real" people (Lobbyists) are Corporate theives and swindlers.

by DerekLarsson 2007-08-29 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Should Quit Taking Money From Lobbyist

she should stop when all the candidates stop taking money from all special interests, that includes Edwards, Obama, Dodd, Biden and the rest of them.

whats the difference between trial lawyers, hedge funds, state lobbyists, federal lobbyists, pacs, unions, and actblue

by sepulvedaj3 2007-08-29 10:01AM | 0 recs
Lobbyists In Particular

Equating contributions from attorneys with contributions from registered Washington lobbyists who work 24/7 in DC to influence and write legislation is silly.  That is like equating flint with a raging forest fire.  Do you even have a clue as to what lobbyists in DC do for a living?  Do you want some links?  

If you cannot understand the special place that Washington lobbyists occupy in our presently corrupt political system, then respectfully, you probably do not know who Jack Abramoff is.  And, I am sure you have never worked on Capitol Hill.  Hopefully, you are not trying to distract the netroots by telling people: hey, don't worry about that lobbyist problem you and 75% of America feel VERY strongly about.  Sleep, sleep...

You mention corporate PAC's as a problem. Yep, they are.  It is worth noting that only Hillary Clinton is taking money from corporate PAC's.  Edwards and Obama are not.

Then you mention ActBlue, which is a web based effort, started with the assistance of the Democratic party to facilitate netroots donations to Democrats.  Are you seriously trying to equate ActBlue with corporate PAC's and Washington lobbyists?  Huh?  

That would be a new low for a Clinton supporter.  

by Demo37 2007-08-29 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Lobbyists In Particular

Dont try spinning my comments.

If you dont think Actblue tries to influence then you are living in an alternate universe.  I donate through act blue because i want my stances represented.  Candidates that are taking money from Actblue are taking money from progressives on the net.  If these candidates turn out to be ineffective, and remain status quo, the money wont be there the next time around.

Unions push for a candidate they think are best suited to help them.  They, through their support behind a candidate, come with votes and money.  If the candidate turns their back on the Union and doesnt do anything to help, the Union wont be there the next time around.

State lobbyists do the same thing as Federal lobbyists, just focus on their state.

Corporate donations go to candidates they think will help out. Thats why Dodd has so much money from corporations, it isnt because he's an evil corporate democrat, but because he probably has the most experience in banking policy than any of the candidates. There have been tons of posts about where the money is coming from, and while i dont feel like searching high and low for it, there was a nice spread by another poster on who is getting money from where, and how much, Dodd raked in the most, and had the highest percentage.  Edwards, Clinton and Obama also got moeny, but their percentage, as opposed to Dodd's was much lower in the overall fundraising spectrum.

Clinton also got money from federal lobbyists. But that percentage is less than 1% of her overall fundraising.

PACs also do the same thing, so do trial lawyers, hedgefund workers, and so on and so forth.

Hell, it even works for individual donors.  I've donated money, and if my candidate disappoints me, i wont be donating again.

Again, until there are publicly funded elections, the money problem will be there, whether it comes from an individual donor, or a federal lobbyist.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-08-31 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Should Quit Taking Money From Lobbyist

Personally I don't care either way. Might be political expedient for her, but I'm also impressed with her honesty in this.

I'm more concerned with the companies that are represented by the lobbyists. A call for boycotting specific industries might be more my style. But only marginally. I'm more for eliminating fund raising all together. Government pays for the general and the parties pay the nominations. It's happening in quite a few countries without problems.

by Ernst 2007-08-29 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Should Quit Taking Money From Lobbyist

George W. Bush:  "Ken Lay (Enron) is an honest and decent man".
Hillary Clinton: "Lobbyists are just real people."

Yes, legalized bribery is something that you should care about, folks!

by DerekLarsson 2007-08-29 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Should Quit Taking Money From Lobbyist

Yeah sure, I just called for the entire system to be scrapped, but don't let that interrupt your pithy comment.

I mean, your inane comments to everybody deviating slightly in the standard condemnation of lobbyists... Those comments... They add so much to the discussion. I already feel enlightened.

I mean without that comment I might have continued in the belief that it's better to do away with all corporate fundraising altogether. But with your quick and witty comeback you really showed my error!

Thank you for your insight! DerekLarsson, you really rescued this diary! I really can't thank you enough!

by Ernst 2007-08-29 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

I trust Hillary- if she says she is not influenced by it, I believe her.  No, she should not stop taking it if she doesn't want to.

by reasonwarrior 2007-08-29 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

How well did that trust work out when it came to votes on Iraq?

How well did that trust work out when it came to votes on the unconstitutional U.S. Patriot Act?

How well did that trust work out when it came to rejecting NAFTA, WTO?

How well did that trust work out when it came to votes on banning Cluster Bombs?  (Hillary voted against the ban!)

Yes, folks ... legalized bribery does matter.
I, for one, do not "trust" Hillary (especially given her poor Senate track-record).

by DerekLarsson 2007-08-29 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

Please back up some of this- what group are you claiming bribed her to vote the way she did in the items you talked about?

by reasonwarrior 2007-09-02 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Should Quit Taking Money From Lobbyist

Why does this poll matter?

by world dictator 2007-08-29 10:43AM | 0 recs
it appears that the people of the USA

are being conned into believing only lobbyists are special interests and that all lobbyists are bad.  This is, of course, nonsense.
All the candidates are taking money from special interests.  Edwards and Obama both take money from the people who HIRE the lobbyists and the families of the lobbyists and from state lobbyist.

Apparently Obama and particularly Edwards don't mind bullshitting the american people.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-08-29 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Should Quit Taking Money From Lobbyist

I sincerely hope Edwards keeps pushing this.

Maybe other people will do what I did. According to opensecrets, federal appropriations is the #1 lobbying issue -- dwarfs the others.

I looked up who spends the most $$ in performing federal contracts in my congressional district -- Lockheed Martin -- yup, a major employer and subcontractor. And also one of the top lobbyists according to opensecrets.

There's a major university down the street from me, yes, w/ a DC lobbyist. They recently announced that one of our senators has procured $700K for a development PPP on campus.

I laughed when only a handful of ppl responded in the affirmative at ykos that a DC lobbyist represents their interests.

Nobody works in an industry that has a lobbying presence in DC.

Nobody works at a law firm that lobbies.

Nobody has any relationship to lobbyists at all.

It's quite amazing, actually.

If you want to be sure there is no undue influence  across the board, then comprehensive campaign finance reform is in order. Period. This bizarre jockeying about who is one step vs two steps removed from lobbyists is just not very convincing to me.

by dblhelix 2007-08-29 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

I sincerely hope Edwards keeps pushing this

Oh me too.  I hope he has it printed on the side of his big vulgar bus!  The more negative Edwards gets toward other Dem candidates, especially Hillary and Obama, the better.  He has all but lost this election so what's he got to lose at this point?  At least he stopped reminding us, over and over and over, about his Iraq war vote apology.  Hey, if one tactic doesn't work, try another.

John and Elizabeth Edwards have a nice big house waiting for them and it's not the Whitehouse.

by samueldem 2007-08-29 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

And what does it matter if she apologizes for the vote? Tell me, what would it change and how would it change your feelings to Senator Clinton if she says "I'm sorry."

by RJEvans 2007-08-29 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

Actually, I did not say I was tired of Edwards saying sorry for his vote, the post above me said that.

Screennames...

by RJEvans 2007-08-29 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: No

So, should Clinton say to these people who contribute millions to her campaign, "I can't take your money because of your occupation."

by RJEvans 2007-08-29 04:53PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads