#Occupy Tax Day

Extracurricular

Last week, Paul and I went to an Occupy Wall Street working group about getting money out of politics. Paul’s been involved with the movement to end corporate personhood for a while and he’s done quite a bit of work on the constitutional amendments floating around. He’s even written an amendment of his own. I’ve been working on an ongoing research project about the movement for my research for media activism class, so I went as an observer.

The meeting itself was incredibly fascinating from a research perspective. There are so many different ideas being tossed around about getting money out of politics. Some people at the meeting want to pass a constitutional amendment ending corporate personhood. Some are 100% behind purely publicly financed elections. And there were the radical opinions about the constitutionality of income taxes.

The takeaway from the meeting was really that there is a lot of anger and frustration about the amount of money in politics, but there is little agreement on what to do. There was, however, one thing on the agenda and that was a tax day rally in front of the main post office in New York City. The event was supposed to be about the corporate tax rate compared to individual tax rates. With so many people heading into the post office to mail their tax returns off to the IRS, it seemed like a great way to build support for the movement.

So, I went over to the James Farley Post Office this afternoon to check things out. Turns out there were two different rallies going on, both Occupy, but with different aims. The first, which was held right in front of the post office, was protesting the use of tax dollars to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Rude Mechanical Orchestra marched to the post office along with Occupiers and they sang and chanted about tax day. My favorite refrain was, “How do you fix the deficit? End the wars and tax the rich!” Catchy, right?

I was surprised by this protest though, because I was expecting something different. At the Occupy working group, they had said the rally would be about the corporate tax rate, but besides a handful of signs, I didn’t see much focus on that issue. I was also surprised by the number of people there. I thought the event was going to be larger. There were plenty of cops on sight and one even said they were expecting between 500 and 2,500 protesters to show up. After hearing the same songs and chants a few times, I decided to pack it in, but as I walked down Eighth Avenue, I stumbled upon the other rally.

A block away, a lot more people had gathered and they were definitely making noise. This rally had organized speakers, many of whom spoke about the tax rates that corporation pay. And they had the Tax Dodgers! They were a bunch of guys wearing baseball uniforms that said “Tax Dodger” on the front and “1%” on the back. Along with a couple of cheerleaders, they sang about how corporations take advantage of loopholes. They even gave away free money! Sure, it was only a penny each, but that’s 100% genuine American currency.

I only had my camera phone with me, but I took a few pictures of the event. Enjoy!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Advertisements

Money in Politics Survey Analysis

School

So, thanks again to everyone who took the survey! Your responses really helped and the data was really interesting. You can see the raw data in my previous post, but I wanted to parse a few of the questions further. Of my 52 respondents, only one describe their political leanings as right. So, for the purposes of my analysis, I chose to ignore that one respondent. Sorry to whoever that was! I did appreciate your contribution! Unfortunately, without more responses from that side of the aisle, it was impossible to draw any conclusions with a sample size of one.

That said, there were a few responses in my money in politics survey that really took me by surprise. This is the breakdown of how the (now) 51 respondents reported their political leanings:

And when it came to campaign finance reform, most answered that it was a very important issue to them:

Respondents generally agreed that there is too much money being spent on political campaigns,

that there should be limits on the amount of money spent on political campaigns,

and that money can corrupt political campaigns.

And yet, the majority of respondents were pretty wishy-washy about the idea of publicly financed elections:

This was probably the most interesting piece of data in the entire survey. Purely publicly financed elections are a frequently floated idea to limit the amount of money spent on political campaigns. Proponents of public financing say it will even the playing field and limit the influence of private corporations and individuals on candidates. But even though a majority did respond that they agreed with the statement to a degree, nearly half were on the fence.

A few more interesting bits of data. When asked how familiar they were with the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the majority of respondents said they knew about the decision:

And a vast majority were not fans of the Super PAC:

Incidentally, the one respondent that identified as right said that Super PACs have had a positive effect on our electoral process. Again, that respondent is not included in the data above.

So, what does it all mean?

All semester long I’ve been focusing on the movement to respond to Citizens United by abolishing corporate personhood through a constitutional amendment. In conducting this survey, my goal was to gain insight on how people felt about money in politics in general. With this data, I hoped to gain a better idea of how to prepare targeted arguments in this debate.

One of the main problems with political activism is that there are so many issues to get fired up about; women’s reproductive rights, taxes, entitlements, corporate subsidies, environmental issues, etc. Along with Social Security, campaign finance reform has long been a third rail of electoral process. After all, it’s hard to get political candidates on board with changing the way campaigns are financed as they are trying to finance a campaign. In order to move forward on this issue, it will take a groundswell of support from the general population. And this data, though limited, could help activists understand how to steer the debate in order to gain support.

People do care about campaign finance reform, but as I mentioned before, public financing is probably not the road to take in order to gain support for this movement. I recently observed an Occupy Wall Street working group about getting money out of politics. While the group formed around the idea of responding to Citizens United, there was no real agreement on how that should be done. One member of the group insisted that the only way to solve the problem was to have purely publicly financed elections. Based on my data, I don’t think he will get the support he’s hoping if that’s where he’s focusing his argument.

I think the main takeaways from the data is that people are angry and frustrated about the amount of money in politics. And that’s where to start in order to gain support. If you draw people into the debate by talking about the negative effects of money in politics and the influence of Super PACs, then people will be more likely to get fired up about the rest of the movement’s goals.

In retrospect, I do wish I had included a few more questions about the corporate personhood movement and specifically, parsing the specifics of the Citizens United decision. While a majority of people said they were familiar with the decision, I wonder if they really understand what the ruling actually meant. From my other questions, I got the sense that people understood that the decision has lead to an influx of money in our campaigns from corporations, however, I don’t know if people really understand that the decision definitively afforded corporations personhood under the Fourteenth Amendment, said corporations had the First Amendment right to free speech and determined that the spending of money is a protected form of speech. Part of the reason I chose not to include specific questions about the Citizens United decision was that I couldn’t figure out a way to ask those questions without specifically biasing the answer. I did ask one specific question about the decision, whether spending money should be treated as a protected expression of speech:

Clearly, respondents disagreed with the statement, but this data gives me no indication as to whether people know that the Supreme Court has already made a decision on this issue. Which is the primary reasons there is a movement to overturn the decision through a constitutional amendment to begin with.

And the other regret is that I didn’t get more responses from the right. I posted my survey on Facebook and Twitter and my husband, who is involved in the movement, posted the survey on a couple websites he frequents about the issue. Based on the locations of my respondents, though, it’s a pretty clear that most  responses were from my friends, my family and my family friends living in New York and Connecticut. I only received one response from a red state, Texas. And, incidentally, the only respondent who identified as right was from Massachusetts. I did tweet the survey with the hashtags #GOP and #tcot a few times to see if I could get any responses, but none of those efforts lead to any survey takers.

Overall, I found process designing and implementing a survey to be challenging and surprisingly enjoyable. I found myself checking the responses every few minutes to see if anyone new had taken the survey. I especially enjoyed the open-ended questions. The data was nearly impossible to quantify, but some of the responses were a hoot. I do not envy organizations like Gallup or PPP who do this on a daily basis, but it did make me wonder whether the national pollsters that make headlines regularly put as much thought into the wording of their questions as I did.