Appendix ~--~~.~~~~~~ Eagleton Institute of Politics
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
APPENDIX ~--~~.~~~~~~ EAGLETON INSTITUTE OF POLITICS Presentation to the Clean Elections Commission on the Proposed Work of the NJ Clean Elections Academic Study Group June 17, 2005 by Ingrid W. Reed Director, Eagleton NJ Project Backjp'ound On April 8, 2005, a group of faculty members from various institutions of higher education whos1~ work includes a focus on New Jersey politics met at the Eagleton Institute for the purpose of discussing whether there were ways they might be useful to the recently-formed Clean Elections Commission which is charged to evaluate the pilot project providing public funding for two kgislative districts in the 2005 election. The focus of the meeting was on the purposes set out in New Jersey law creating the Clean Electi Jns pilot project: -Address the fact that residents of the State believe large contributions to campaigns have undue influence, and · · -That the political process is dominated by those who can afford to spend large amounts· of money on campaigns, and - -The result is an erosion of public confidence in the democratic process. -Also, that the pilot project would provide equal resources to candidates, reverse the escalating cost and free candidate~ from the chore of raising money, (based on the laws currently in effect in Maine and Arizona), as well as strengthen public confidence in the democratic process. The group also examined the charge to the Clean Elections Commission to: - examine the positive and negative aspects of the experience - review and recommend criteria for selecting districts and setting the seed money and qualifying contribution amounts - establishing support for primary races in 2007 - consider feasibility of applying to all races - means to finance clean elections and other matters. This in:;:Ormal group agreed to consider activities, which if undertaken independently from the Commi s~ion, would be useful to the Commission in evaluating the pilot project. ------------ 191 RYDERSLANE, NEW BRUNSWICK,.NJ 08901-8557 ----------- THE STATE UNIVERSl'IY'"- Of NEW JERSEY E-mail: [email protected]:ers.edu Tel: 732/932-9384 01 rrrroc Proposed Program C 1n May I 0, the informal group of academics met again at the Eagleton Institute of Politics and a;.~eed to be known as the New Jersey Clean Elections Academic Study Group. The purpose of tl Le Group is to support the Clean Elections Pilot Project by conducting research during the Pilot Project in the fall of 2005, analyze the information and data collected after the elections, and n lake this analysis available to the Clean Elections Commissions for their use in the evaluation n :quired by the Clean Election law. · The following are the components of the study that the Group considers essential and will a1 tempt to fulfill: A- Follow the conduct of the four campaigns in the two Clean Elections districts ru id in two to four other "control" districts with similar characteristics but possibly a contrast in g1 ~ography, media coverage and political balance. David Rebovich has provided a preliminary p: ~otocol for monitoring the campaign activity, including newspaper coverage, which will serve a:: basis for a sub-committee to design detailed guidance. Faculty interested in supervising a Ci unpaign or a district include Rebovich, Reed, Segers, Kem, Marbach. Others will be contacted. T b.e Group will meet at the end of June after the Pilot districts have been designated to select the cc mtrol districts and refine the protocol. B- Monitor media coverage and ads on television. Matt Hale, a co-director of the A nnenberg/U. of Wisconsin 2002 and l004 study of political campaign coverage on television rn 'ws programs has agreed to organize a study of the media coverage in pilot and control districts uning the U. of Wisconsin research design and team. It is proposed to conduct the study 30 days be ,fore the election and include 11 outlets - 8 network affiliates (four in Philadelphia and four in New York), 2 cable systems and New Jersey Network focusing on the nightly news program. It is estimated that the cost would be around $12,000 or $1,000 per outlet and miscellaneous e' :penses. Hale would donate his time. Additional infonnation would be collected about special p1 ogramming and debates. Television and radio ads would be requested from the campaigns after they have been aired. C- Conduct surveys to assess voter attitudes about issues of influence of money in election campaigns to determine if the Pilot Project influenced voter opinion as stated in the goals of the Clean Election Law. Peter Woolley of the Fairleigh-Dickinson Public Mind Poll and Jeffrey Levine of the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling will collaborate in conducting two statewide polls, one in early September and another before election day as well as two polls designed to focus on the districts in the study to assess awareness of the clean election project. It is estimated that the direct cost for conducting the surveys will be about $20,000 if the survey qt estions are included in polls that are already planned. The agenda could include other research items such as an historical study of the 200 I A~sembly races in the pilot project district to provide a comparison to 2005, a review of evaluations conducted of the Arizona and Maine clean elections for useful ideas and contrasts, and consultations with the Brennan Center for their ideas on the study based on their extensive work cin clean elections. While faculty time would be contributed, support for the direct cost of the media monitoring and the su1 veys will be sought from interested funders. Suggestions are welcome. It was :igreed that the report of the work of the Group will be submitted to the interested faculty collabc •rators for their review and comment before the presentation to the Clean Elections Commission. Faculv r Participants The or ~anizing group includes: Matt Hale, Seton Hall University Jeffrey Levine, Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling (after July I, Timothy Vercellotti, assistant director, ECPIP) Joseph Marbach, Seton Hall University David Rebovich, Rider University Ingrid Reed, Eagleton, Rutgers-NB Mary Segers, Political Science, Rutgers-Newark Peter Woolley, Fairleigh Dickinson University The interested group includes: Mark Alexander, Seton Hall University Law School Bruce Caswell, Political Science, Rowan University Henry Coleman; Blaustein School, Rutgers-NB Jane Junn, Political Science, Rutgers-NB, Eagleton Montague Kem, School of Communication, Information and Library Science, Rutgers Susan Lederman, Public Administration, Kean University Ruth Mandel, Rutgers-NB, Eagleton Gerry Pomper, Rutgers-NB, Eagleton Alan Tarr, Political Science, Rutgers-Camden Dan Tichenor, Political Science and Eagleton, Rutgers-NB ----------------------------------------------------------------------------~2003 ASSEMBLY RACE --------------------------o/o of Votes Received for .....-------------- .....--..---------------~----------~ Assemblyman by Party Affiliation % Margin of Winner % Realstered Voters in District -[1istrict Democrat Republican Democrat Republican Democrat Republican Untlacidael i~ ,,1 Ar. t:= .;;.;;.;;;.;..;.;;..""-~~~~~~~---~:•"-._....,..,__.._ _____+-...,._-.-~..,._-+~~--.,.,_~ ........ ..._~~+-.......,;--.;..;..;..;.;._c 54. 7 52. 7 4. 7 16.4 30.2 53.4 42.6 50.0 2.7 ~ 37.4 65.0 27.6 20.6 25.5 53.9 2 36.6 61.0 23.6 ., '°"': ... '·······.,.., •. - 52.6 48.5 4.1 25.5 17.3 57.2 3 52.4 46.5 3.9 .......... :- • ·•. ~·: •. ~ : ·•••. : ot:~. ·~ '.' =··· 54.6 45.7 8.9 28.5 15.5. 56.0 4 . 53.9 45.7 8.2 ~ ... •· ... ·.. · --- 65.0 37.5 27.5 34.9 10.2 54.9 5 60.9 36.6 23.4 ,... ... ·:: ..•. ~ } = 60.0 40.6 19.4 28.5 14.7 56.8 6 59.0 40.4 18.4 ~- ·" 52.4 48.7 3.7 29.2 16.6 54.2 p 7 52.2 46.7 3.5 ~:~.;,(. .... ,.:.,,.,, 34.7 67.3 32.6 17.4 25.0 57.6 8 32.6 65.5 30.8 ::::: ... 39.1 65.3 26.2 16.7 25.8 57.5 J 9 38.1 57.5 18.4 o:z: •. ·-")-:f.·~ .. - ·i'<~··:·• ,_,.,;. ..,4"*": "• ·_~; .. .,. ... ~ 36.0 65.8 29.8 13.8 22.9 63.3 10 35.2 62.9 26.9 $•'"'"'·~-~.;-- •.: >-t.·· ...• ......... :-·.• ·.~-- .. '.' . ,, >. _~,~, .:.·:·~.·.·.;·•t-·-~,.'."!~. -' • ~ •. ~ .........,. ";_.; ..... : ..;· .. 37.7 64.6 26.9 19.0 20.7 60.3 11 36.1 61.5 23.8 t::::: -;,- ·.• _.,.,, :<: ';..<: ., ..; .• .,:,.·.-.. :"·':·'-::" 1'""'· : 53.6 47.9 5.7 18.8 17.7 63.5 12 52.8 45.7 4.9 ,.;:._ ... ·,,, ....- : ... · .. ·· .. ~ ·~ ~-. , ·':-': .. ;•· .. .. •" :::::: .,_ ·.. :..;.-·:·'.·-·...... .... '·' ~·::- ', ·. 50.0 51.2 1.2 18.3 17.9 48.2 50.6 0.6 50.9 55.9 6.8 24.5 14.9 14 44.1 49.1 1.8 :.· ·• .... 65.0 36.9 28.1 31.1 12.4 ·56.5 [). 15 62.2 35.9 25.3 31.4 69.0 37.6 13.1 27.6 59.3 31.4 68.1 36.7 60.6 41.2 19.4 28.1 9.3 62.6 59.9 38.3 18.7 59.2 45.9 13.3 28.1 13.1 53.4 41.5 7.5 64.6 44.5 20.1 36.6 8.9 54.5 19 54.1 36.8 9.6 62.7 39.2 23.5 42.6 10.1 47.3 20 62.6 35.5 23.4 2003 ASSEMBLY RACE % of Votes Received for · Assemblyman by Party Afflllatlon % Margin of Winner % Reaistered Voters in District . ~ _.. Dlstrlc Democrat Reoubllcan Democrat Republican Democrat Republican Undeekletl- c ~"" ._ .• , .... ·.·.'!'···;. ,,. ' •. · ....-~ ... - .. ~~-.:. ,. •,,· .. ,-·.:,..· 43.5 61.4 17.9 17.9 28.0 54.1 21 35.7 59.3 15.8 59.8 42.1 17.7 33.3 14.2 52.5 22 56.6 41.5 14.5 •:·1"¥.::. ,. ·~ ·.··.. ·~ ....-'· ' 40.5 61.9 21.4 14.6 34.2 51.2 23 37.1 60.5 20.0 32.9 69.0 36.1 10.3 .