A Survey or a Push Poll

As the 2010 legislative session gets underway, state senators and representatives are wise to collect information from their constituents. After all, how can they represent people whose opinions they do not know? Town Hall meetings are a great way to do this. Opinion polls and surveys, either by phone or mail, are also good options. Our household recently received the “2010 Legislative Survey” from our elected representative and senator.

Most surveys are meant to collect information. Others are “push polls” meant to look like they are collecting information but, in reality, are meant to disseminate it. A push poll is often used to promote oneself or to “push” negative information about a person or viewpoint.

The first clue that the survey I received might not be a survey to collect real attitudes and opinions was that bad news is introduced with "Due to the economic downturn," and good news with "Due to wise fiscal management".

The second clue was the fact that opinions are interspersed with the questions, such as the following: (Do you support or oppose) steps to opt out of provisions that would raise taxes and harm businesses if a 'Cap and Trade' agreement passes congress?"

The final question put to rest any of my remaining doubts about the nature of this survey. It offers six statements, next to which respondents can place a checkmark to indicate agreement. There is no space for respondents to add explanations or exceptions.

The first statement reads "I prefer having laws made through the legislative process with public hearings rather than by initiative." Of course we all prefer the legislative process over walking petitions around. There is, however, a constitutional right to petition government when the elected representatives ignore the will of the people. Two such cases produced the current initiatives: legislative ethics reform by Utahns for Ethical Government and redistricting reform by Fair Boundaries. In Utah, legislation by initiative is rare but the right to it is essential.

The second statement is "I am aware that the initiative creates and [sic] Ethics Commission that has not [sic] accountability to the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch [sic] and that its decision cannot be appealed." How do you agree or disagree that you are aware of a falsehood? The proposed commission would be composed of legislative staff chosen by the legislators themselves. The only sense in which this commission would not be “accountable” to elected officials is in the fact that such officials would not completely control commission decisions. These decisions would be whether to forward submitted complaints to the Ethics Committee—formed of legislators themselves—who would then hear and rule on these complaints. Rulings could be appealed. Why would a decision to merely hear a complaint need to be appealed?

The third statement is "I am aware that the Ethics Commission would consist of members who have life time appointments." Again, how can you state you are aware of a falsehood? Commission members would serve five year terms with staggered dates of replacement.

The fourth statement is "I have/would sign [sic] the 21 page Citizens Ethics Initiative without reading it." Is this an attempt to intimidate? It shouldn't be, since the writers of this survey obviously haven't read the initiative.

The fifth statement is "I would prefer laws that create an increased transparency in lobbyist activities." The State of Utah is recognized for promoting transparency and this initiative does nothing to limit that. But the state can dump a pile of data onto a website, calling it transparency, and it would be far more obscure to voters than having the legislators sign a code of conduct.

The last statement is "I think campaign contributions should be capped notwithstanding that such a cap could prevent citizens in lower income brackets from running for office." A cap would prevent a candidate of any economic background from running a campaign financed solely by a few special interest groups. This, unfortunately, is common practice. To finance a campaign through contributions from constituents provides a candidate an opportunity to talk to these constituents and really hear what they think. If the Ethics initiative accomplished just this much, it would be worthwhile.

I have decided not to send in the survey. It will not tell my representatives anything about what I think. But then again, it wasn't meant to.