Government Reform

Government and Elections

Numerous government reforms have been proposed that seek to counter potential distortions to the democratic process by:

constraining the role of money in the campaigns and making it more transparent
limiting lobbying by recently retired government officials
making the process of House redistricting more representative of the partisan balance of a state
having Congressional term limits
making it more possible for independent and third-party candidates to compete in elections
banning stock-trading by Members of Congress.

CONSTRAINING THE ROLE OF MONEY IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS

Constitutional Amendment to Allow Regulation

Pass a new Constitutional amendment that would allow governments greater freedom to regulate campaign financing and to restrict corporations more than individuals, thus overturning the Citizens United decision

Survey: PPC, August 2017

Respondents evaluated the following proposal to effectively overturn the Supreme Court's Citizen United v. FEC decision, which lifted regulations on campaign financing:

A new Constitutional amendment that would have two parts. It would allow Congress and the states to
write campaign finance laws that:

May regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.
Can distinguish between people and corporations or other organizations, thus allowing legislators to restrict or prohibit corporations and other organizations from spending money to influence elections.

Asked whether their Member of Congress should vote in favor or against this amendment, a bipartisan majority of 75% came out in favor, including 66% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats.

More Details

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United v. FEC, in which restrictions on political donations by corporations were removed, there has been a concern that unlimited donations by special interests is making government officials less responsive to the public as a whole.

To address this concern, Members of Congress have introduced legislation to effectively reverse the Citizens United decision through a Constitutional amendment which would give Congress the power to place regulations on campaign donations.

Briefing

Respondents were first introduced to this topic, by being told that in order for Congress to limit all forms of campaign‐related donations, a new Constitutional amendment would be required to override the Supreme Court’s past decisions on this subject, including “Citizens United”, and prevent the courts from striking down campaign finance laws in the future.

They were presented a proposed amendment, which includes two parts.

First Part of Proposal: Arguments and Acceptability

The first part was presented as follows:

The proposed Constitutional amendment would say Congress and the states may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others seeking to influence elections.

Presented with an argument in favor of this part of the amendment, a large bipartisan majority found it convincing. The argument against did substantially worse, with less than half finding it convincing. However, a majority of Republicans found it convincing. When they were asked how acceptable this part of the constitutional amendment would be to them along a 0-10 scale, with 5 being “just tolerable”, it was found at least tolerable (5-10) by 79%, including 72% of Republicans and 87% of Democrats.

Second Part of Proposal: Arguments and Acceptability

Respondents were then introduced to the second part of the proposed constitutional amendment which said that:

… in writing campaign finance laws, Congress would have the right to treat corporations and other organizations differently from ‘natural persons.’ This would allow Congress to restrict or even prohibit corporations and other organizations from spending money to influence elections.

The argument in favor of the second part of the amendment was found convincing by a large bipartisan majority. The argument against, on the other hand, was not as well‐received, with less than half of all groups finding it convincing.

When they were asked how acceptable they found this part of the constitutional amendment along a 0-10 scale, 79% found it at least tolerable (5-10), including 73% of Republicans and 86% of Democrats.

Final Recommendation

In the end, respondents were asked whether their Member of Congress should vote in favor or against this two‐ part constitutional amendment. A clear bipartisan majority of 75% came out in favor, including 66% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats.

Demographics

Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation
When a separate sample was told the results of the survey above, 87% said they agreed with the majority position, including 82% of Republicans and 93% of Democrats. (PPC 2018)

Related Standard Polls
A large bipartisan majority has expressed support for the broad principle of placing limits on political spending:

Asked whether they favor “placing limits on political campaign spending” 69% said that they do (Republicans 69%, Democrats 71%). A tiny 7-8% (in all categories) was opposed. A substantial 21-23% said they neither favored or opposed it (2016 American National Election Survey Time Series)

A large bipartisan majority has favored placing limits on campaign spending by corporations, but Republicans were less supportive than Democrats:

Asked to choose between three options related to corporate spending, 63% chose “corporations should be limited in the amount of money they can spend” (39%, Republicans 37%, Democrats 39%) or “corporations should not be allowed to spend money on political campaigns at all” (24%, Republicans 19%, Democrats 27%). Just 37% chose “corporations should be allowed to spend as much money as they want” (Republicans 44%, Democrats 35%, independents 29%)(November 2015, AP-NORC)

A slightly smaller bipartisan majority has expressed support for a constitutional amendment to allow more limits on campaign spending:

57% favored “a constitutional amendment that allows Congress and state governments to regulate campaign contributions to and spending by candidates for office.” (Republicans 54%, Democrats 59%), 35-41% were opposed and 5-9% did not provide an answer (August 2014, Reason and Rupe).

Views have been divided on whether campaign contributions are a form of free speech:

51% said that they consider “consider money given to political candidates to be a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution”while 49% said they do not. For Republicans, 54% said they do consider it a form of free speech, while 54% of Democrats said they do not. (2015, AP-NORC).

Pluralities to modest majorities have favored placing limits on Super PACs, but large numbers did not have an opinion either way, suggesting that respondents were not well informed on the issue.

A poll sought to reference Super PACs, saying that “Currently, groups not working with a political candidate may spend unlimited amounts of money on advertisements during a political campaign”. They then asked respondents whether they favor “placing limits on this kind of spending.” In all cases, the largest share favored doing so (50%, Republicans 44%, Democrats 57%), with just 13-20% opposed. Relatively large numbers (30-36%) chose “neither favor or oppose”. (2016, American National Election Survey)
Another poll referred to the fact that “some groups are allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to support a candidate as long as they do not coordinate with the candidate’s campaign.” The largest share called this unacceptable (overall 51%, Republicans 44%, Democrats 57%), 29-37% found it acceptable, and 14-19% found it neither acceptable or unacceptable. (November 2015, AP-NORC)

Status of Legislation
The proposal to amend the Constitution and give Congress more powers to regulate campaign finance was introduced as H.J. Res 113 by Rep. Adam Schiff in the 115th Congress. It was reintroduced in the 116th Congress by the same sponsor (H.J. Res 57). It is also in H.J. Res 2 by Rep. Ted Deutch.

The proposal is also part of the larger government reform bill For the People Act, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Merkley (S. 1) Rep. John Sarbanes (H.R. 1) in the 117th Congress. This bill passed the House, with all votes in favor coming from Democrats and all votes against from Republicans. The bill was not taken up in the Senate.

	Countering Large Campaign Donors
	Make half of a campaign donation up to $50 refundable in the form of a tax credit, and limit this to people who have donated no more than $300 to that candidate Survey: PPC, August 2017 Respondents evaluated the following proposal: When a citizen contributes up to $50 to a specific candidate, half of the contribution would be refundable in the form of a tax credit. This would be limited to small donors, which would be people whose total donations to that candidate are no more than $300. A bipartisan majority of 60% were in favor, including 53% of Republicans, 67% of Democrats and 55% of independents. More Details Briefing To encourage more small donors and to indirectly inject public money into campaigns, Members of Congress have introduced legislation that would provide refundable tax credit to small donors. Respondents were first presented the idea behind the proposal, that “by reducing the cost of making donations, more citizens will make donations and small donors will make somewhat larger donations, thus increasing the total amount coming from small donors.” They were then introduced to the specific proposal: When a citizen contributes up to $50 to a specific candidate, half of the contribution would be refundable in the form of a tax credit. This would be limited to small donors, which would be people whose donations to that candidate are no more than $300. Arguments The argument in favor was found convincing by a large, bipartisan majority (70%), including two‐thirds of Republicans and three‐fourths of Democrats. The argument against was found convincing by a similarly large bipartisan majority (68%), including seven‐in‐ten Republicans and two‐thirds of Democrats. Final Recommendation Asked for their final recommendation, six in ten recommended that their Member of Congress vote in favor of this proposal. For Republicans, a more modest majority was in favor (53%), while among Democrats, two‐thirds recommended the proposal. Demographics Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation When a separate sample was told the results of the survey above, 64% said they agreed with the majority position, including 59% of Republicans and 70% of Democrats. (PPC 2018) Status of Legislation The proposal to encourage small donations by giving tax credits to campaign donations up to $50, and no more than $300 in total, was in the Fair Elections Now Act sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin (S. 1640), and the Government by the People Act by Rep. John Sarbanes (H.R. 20) in the 115th Congress. None of the bills made it out of committee.
	Provide support to Senate candidates who only take donations up to $150 with a 6-to-1 match and other support using funds from a new fee on government contractors Survey: PPC, August 2017 Respondents evaluated the following proposal to create a campaign finance matching program for Senate candidates: Create a program that provides financial support to US Senate candidates who agree to limit their fundraising to small donors. A candidate who chooses to participate must: agree not to take donations of more than $150 from any donor for an election. demonstrate their viability as a candidate by raising a substantial number of small donations from in-state donors. The candidate would then receive additional funds as follows: a six-to-one match of each small donation a grant and credits for media ads that would vary depending on the population of their state The program would be funded by a new fee paid by companies who do large contract work for the federal government. They would be charged a fee of 0.5% on the amount of each contract over $10 million. A bipartisan majority of 66% were in favor, including 58% of Republicans and 73% of Democrats. More Details Briefing To encourage small donors, to directly inject public funds into campaigns, and to encourage candidates to only take small donations, legislation has been proposed that would provide Senate candidates with six-to-one matching funds if they agree only to take small donations. Respondents were introduced to the proposal as follows: The idea is to create a program that provides financial support to US Senate candidates who agree to limit their fundraising to small donors. Here is how it would work: A candidate who chooses to participate must: agree not to take donations of more than $150 from any donor for an election. demonstrate their viability as a candidate by raising a substantial number of small donations from in‐state donors. The candidate would then receive additional funds as follows: a six‐to‐one match of each small donation (e.g. if someone were to make a donation of $100, the candidate would receive an additional $600) a grant and credits for media ads, totaling approximately $1‐$14 million, depending on the population of their state The program would be funded by a new fee paid by companies who do large contract work for the federal government. They would be charged a fee of 0.5% on the amount of each contract over $10 million. Arguments When asked to evaluate pro and con arguments, the argument in favor was found convincing by an overwhelming and bipartisan majority. The argument against did much less well with only a slight majority of 52% finding it convincing, including a majority of Republicans but just under half of Democrats. Final Recommendation In the end, two-thirds supported their Member of Congress voting in support of the proposal, including 58% of Republicans and 73% of Democrats. Demographics Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation When a separate sample was told the results of the survey above, 53% said they agreed with the majority position, including 62% of Democrats and 41% of Republicans. The survey was fielded January 5th through February 5th and March 9th through 23rd, 2018 Related Standard Polls When presented a brief summary of the proposals to have the government match six-to-one small campaign contributions, and provide refundable tax credits for small contributions, a large bipartisan majority has been in favor: Respondents were presented a limited description of some of the key elements of the Government By the People Act, which was named in the poll question. The 6-to-1 matching of contributions up to $150 was mentioned, with the source of the funds was described as a “public fund”, as was the refundable tax credit proposal for donations up to $25. The benefit that “candidates could run for Congress without needing to raise large campaign contributions” was mentioned, without any countervailing considerations. This elicited a bipartisan majority in favor (70%), including 69% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats. (April 2014, Democracy Corps and Public Campaign Action Fund) However, when presented the principle for matching small donations against the principle of campaigns simply raising and spending donations, the latter has been endorsed by majorities or pluralities overall and for both parties: Respondents were presented three general options for how campaigns should be financed: The idea that “campaigns should raise and spend money using donations” was chosen by the largest share of respondents (overall 57%, Republicans 69%, Democrats 46%). The idea that “ campaigns should primarily use donations, but the federal government should match small donations to increase impact” was chosen by the smallest shares (overall 17%, Republicans 12%, Democrats 21%). The other option, that “the federal government should provide a set amount of money that each candidate can spend” was chosen by 27% (Republicans 19%, Democrats 33%). (2015, AP-NORC) Status of Proposed Legislation The proposal to have the government match six-to-one all Senate campaign donations under $150, funded by a small fee on government contractors, was in the Fair Elections Now Act sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin (S. 1640) in the 115th Congress. It never made it out of committee. A similar provision, which would match six-to-one donations for Congressional campaigns up to $200, funded by new fees on federal civil and criminal penalties, is in the larger government reform bill For the People Act (H.R. 1), sponsored by Rep. John Sarbanes in the 116th Congress. This bill passed the House, with all votes in favor coming from Democrats and all votes against from Republicans. It was not taken up in the Senate.
	End the existing but inactive program for public financing of Presidential campaigns funded from checkoffs on tax returns Survey: PPC, August 2017 Respondents evaluated the following proposal for government financing of Presidential campaigns: End the Federal program providing public support for presidential campaigns. The $3 check off on taxpayers’ IRS forms would be ended and the unused funds would be directed to pediatric research or deficit reduction Asked how their Member of Congress should vote, a bipartisan majority of 66% said they should vote in favor, including 79% of Republicans and 53% of Democrats. More Details There has been concern that the existing program for publicly financing Presidential campaigns, funded by checkoffs on tax returns, is no longer useful. This is because, since its creation in 1970, fewer and fewer Presidential candidates have used the program, and fewer taxpayers have contributed to it. To address this concern, Members of Congress have introduced legislation, continually since 2011, that would end the program, and redirect the funds to other purposes. Briefing Respondents were first presented the following information about the current federal program to fund presidential campaigns: As you may know, in the 1970’s, the federal government established a program to make presidential campaigns less dependent on private contributions by providing them government funds. Presidential campaigns receive these funds, though, only if they agree to limit the total amount of money they spend in their campaign, and the amount of money they get from private sources. The program is funded by taxpayers, who check a box on their IRS tax forms directing $3 to the fund for this purpose. Contributing to the fund does not increase an individual’s taxes or reduce any refund they are owed. For some time, all major presidential candidates adhered to the spending limits and received the funding. With time, though, some candidates found they could raise so much more money through private sources that they chose not to accept the limits on their spending, even though they would have to forego the public funds. By the 2016 election, all of the major candidates chose to exceed the spending limits, foregoing the public funds. Thus, the fund has been rarely used and now has nearly $300 million available. There were then presented the proposal for ending this program:: The legislation proposes to end the Federal program providing public support for presidential campaigns. The $3 check off on taxpayers’ IRS forms would be ended and the unused funds would be directed to pediatric research or deficit reduction. Arguments The argument in favor did very well with a large bipartisan majority finding it convincing. The argument against was found convincing by a substantial albeit smaller majority of 60%. Partisan differences were strong with slightly less than half of Republicans finding it convincing compared to seven in ten Democrats. Final Recommendation In the end, asked how their Member of Congress should vote, two‐thirds said they should vote in favor of eliminating the program for public financing of presidential campaigns, including 79% of Republicans and 53% of Democrats. Demographics Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation When a separate sample was told the results of the survey above, 72% said they agreed with the majority position, including 74% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats. (PPC 2018) Related Standard Polls Polls that ask about public financing of campaigns elicit seemingly discrepant results, suggesting that most citizens have not thought through the issue. The different results could also be caused by the above proposal’s provision to use leftover public money from the Presidential campaign fund for pediatric research or deficit reduction: Views were divided along party lines when asked about “establishing a new campaign finance system where federal campaigns are funded by the government and all contributions from individuals and private groups banned.” Fifty percent approved of this (44% disapproved), including 61% of Democrats and 40% of Republicans (55% disapproved). (Gallup 2013). When presented with three general options for how campaigns should be financed, the second most popular option was government-only funding: The idea that “the federal government should provide a set amount of money that each candidate can spend” was chosen by just 27% (Republicans 19%, Democrats 33%). The idea that “campaigns should raise and spend money using donations” was chosen by the largest share of respondents (overall 57%, Republicans 67%, Democrats 46%). And the idea that “campaigns should primarily use donations, but the federal government should match small donations to increase impact” was the least popular, chosen by just 17% (Republicans 12%, Democrats 21%). (2015, AP-NORC) Status of Legislation The proposal to eliminate public financing of Presidential campaigns, funded by $3 check-offs on tax returns, and redirect the leftover funds to pediatric research or deficit reduction, was in H.R. 133, sponsored by Rep. Tom Cole in the 115th Congress, which did not make it out of committee. Rep. Tom Cole reintroduced the same legislation in the 116th Congress (H.R. 290). The same proposal was also in H.R. 2234 in the 116th Congress, sponsored by Rep. Rodney Davis. A similar proposal, which would instead use the leftover funds to purchase protective equipment for healthcare workers, wa in S. 3586, sponsored by Sen. Joni Ernst and H.R. 6500, sponsored by Rep. Mike Gallagher in the 116th Congress.

	Increase Campaign Financing Disclosure Requirements
Briefing and Arguments Briefing Respondents were first presented the idea of increasing campaign finance disclosure requirements: …(an) idea for reducing or counterbalancing the influence of big donors is to require that donations to candidates and political causes be publicly disclosed or made more transparent. While many forms of campaign‐related donations and spending are required to be publicly disclosed, there are donations that can be made anonymously to certain organizations that can support candidates and political causes. Critics of this kind of giving call it ‘dark money’ because it is anonymous. Until recently, the amount that could be donated to such organizations was limited, but with the U.S. Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision, these limits were removed as an interference with free speech. Since then, the amount of such anonymous donations has gone up dramatically. There are a number of proposals for requiring that such donations be publicly disclosed. There is also a debate about whether there should be greater public disclosure of campaign‐related donations. Arguments Before being presented specific proposals for addressing this issue, respondents were first presented two general arguments in favor of and two general arguments against increasing disclosure of campaign‐related contributions and activities. The arguments in favor of greater disclosure did very well with more than 8 in 10 respondents finding both pro arguments convincing. Respondents were less convinced by arguments opposed to increasing disclosures. One was found convincing by a bare majority, while the other was found convincing by just four in ten. Substantially more Republicans found them convincing then Democrats.
	Require all individuals or organizations that donate or receive at least $10,000 in campaign-related donations to register with the FEC and be publicly listed Survey: PPC, August 2017 Respondents were first presented a briefing and arguments for and against increasing campaign finance disclosure requirements (see above). They then evaluated the following proposal: require that all individuals or organizations that donate or receive a total of $10,000 or more for campaign-related activities promptly register with the Federal Election Commission, and have their name and the amount of the donations listed on the Commission’s website An overwhelming and bipartisan majority said they would recommend that their Member vote in favor of the proposal. Democrats were somewhat more likely to take this position (88%) than Republicans (77%). There was substantial optimism that this measure would be effective. Asked, “How effective do you think this proposal, if enacted, would likely be in reducing or counterbalancing the influence of big campaign donors,” 65% said they thought it would be effective (very 19%). Democrats were more likely to believe it would be effective (73%, very 23%) than Republicans (58%, very 15%). Demographics Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation When a separate sample was told the results of the survey above, 89% agreed with the majority position that all individuals or organizations that donate or receive up to $10,000 in campaign-related donations should promptly report it to the FEC, including 86% of Republicans and 93% of Democrats. Deliberative Poll A deliberative poll by Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab in 2023, which provided respondents with briefing material and pro-con arguments, and allowed respondents to deliberate face-to-face with issue experts and other participants, asked respondents about proposals to increase campaign finance disclosure requirements. Requiring independent organizations such as PACs purchasing election campaign ads to disclose their top donors and officials, was favored by 79%, including 76% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats. Requiring all organizations that make election campaign expenditures to disclose their donors (over a certain minimum level), was favored by 81%, including 81% of Republicans and 84% of Democrats. Related Standard Polls Standard polls have found remarkably similar and consistent levels of bipartisan support, from 74-80%, for increasing disclosure requirements for campaign-related spending: Asked whether “all groups that raise and spend unlimited money to support candidates should be required to publicly disclose their contributors,” 76% said they should publicly disclose them (24% okay to remain private), including 78% of Republicans and 79% of Democrats. (November 2015, AP-NORC) Presented with the idea of requiring political campaign ads on social media to disclose their donors, 78% were in favor, including 80% of Republicans and 78% of Democrats. (October 2017, Marist) Asked whether disclosure requirements should apply to “groups not affiliated with a candidate that spend money during political campaigns,” 75% said they should publicly disclose their donors, including 76% of both Republicans and Democrats. (May 2015, CBS News/New York Times) Status of Proposed Legislation The proposal to increase disclosure requirements for campaign-related donations of at least $10,000 have been included in the Disclose Act since 2012. The bills have not yet made it out of committee. The above proposal was also part of the larger government reform bill For the People Act, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Merkley (S. 1) Rep. John Sarbanes (H.R. 1) in the 117th Congress, including the proposal to require government contractors to disclose their campaign contributions. This bill has passed the House, with all votes in favor coming from Democrats and all votes against from Republicans. It was not taken up by the Senate.
	Require corporations, unions, and other groups, when spending money on campaign-related activities to immediately release this to their shareholders and members, the public and the FEC Survey: PPC, August 2017 Respondents were first presented a briefing and arguments for and against increasing campaign finance disclosure requirements (see above). They were then informed that: Currently, when corporations, unions, and other groups spend money on their own campaign-related activity, such as running a TV ad that is supportive of a candidate, they do not have to report it. They evaluated the following proposal: require that, these groups: • report this spending, within 24 hours, to their shareholders and members • make this information available to the public on their websites • report it to the FEC An overwhelmingly bipartisan majority (85%) recommended that their Member of Congress vote favorably on this proposal. Minimal partisan differences existed, with 83% of Republicans recommending a favorable vote and 88% of Democrats. There was optimism that this measure would be effective. Two thirds (65%) said they thought it would be effective (very 20%). Democrats were slightly more likely to believe it would be effective (69%, very 22%) than Republicans (63%, very 21%). Demographics Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation When a separate sample was told the results of the survey above, 93% agreed with the majority position that corporations, unions, and other groups, when spending money on campaign-related activity, need to report this spending to their shareholders and members, the public and the FEC, including 92% of Republicans and 94% of Democrats. Ninety two percent agreed with the majority position that the FEC should be required to disclose the names of significant donors paying for TV or radio ads in support of candidates or public issues, including 91% of Republicans and 93% of Democrats. (PPC 2018) Deliberative poll A deliberative poll by Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab in 2023, which provided respondents with briefing material and pro-con arguments, and allowed respondents to deliberate face-to-face with issue experts and other participants, asked respondents about proposals to increase campaign finance disclosure requirements. Requiring independent organizations such as PACs purchasing election campaign ads to disclose their top donors and officials, was favored by 79%, including 76% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats. Requiring all organizations that make election campaign expenditures to disclose their donors (over a certain minimum level), was favored by 81%, including 81% of Republicans and 84% of Democrats. Related Standard Polls Standard polls have found remarkably similar and consistent levels of bipartisan support, from 74-80%, for increasing disclosure requirements for campaign-related spending: Asked whether “all groups that raise and spend unlimited money to support candidates should be required to publicly disclose their contributors,” 76% said they should publicly disclose them (24% okay to remain private), including 78% of Republicans and 79% of Democrats. (November 2015, AP-NORC) Presented with the idea of requiring political campaign ads on social media to disclose their donors, 78% were in favor, including 80% of Republicans and 78% of Democrats. (October 2017, Marist) Asked whether disclosure requirements should apply to “groups not affiliated with a candidate that spend money during political campaigns,” 75% said they should publicly disclose their donors, including 76% of both Republicans and Democrats. (May 2015, CBS News/New York Times) Status of Proposed Legislation The proposals to increase disclosure requirements for campaign-related spending by corporations, unions and other groups, have been included in the Disclose Act since 2012. The bills have not yet made it out of committee. The above proposal was also part of the larger government reform bill For the People Act, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Merkley (S. 1) Rep. John Sarbanes (H.R. 1) in the 117th Congress, including the proposal to require government contractors to disclose their campaign contributions. This bill has passed the House, with all votes in favor coming from Democrats and all votes against from Republicans. It was not taken up by the Senate.
	Require the FCC to publicly disclose the names of significant donors paying for TV or radio ads in support of candidates or related to controversial public issues Survey: PPC, August 2017 Respondents were first presented a briefing and arguments for and against increasing campaign finance disclosure requirements (see above). They were then informed that: Currently, when significant donors spend money on their own campaign-related activity, such as running a TV ad that is supportive of a candidate, they do not have to report it. The evaluated the following proposal: the Federal Communications Commission would require the public disclosure of the names of significant donors in paying for TV or radio ads in support of candidates or related to controversial public issues. Eight in ten (81%) recommended that their Member of Congress vote in favor of this proposal, including 74% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats. Once again, they were optimistic about how effective this would be, with 62% answering that it would effective (very 18%). Republicans were less likely to believe the proposal would be effective (54%, very 11%) than Democrats (71%, very 24%). Demographics Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation When a separate sample was told the results of the survey above, 92% agreed with the majority position that the FEC should be required to disclose the names of significant donors paying for TV or radio ads in support of candidates or public issues, including 91% of Republicans and 93% of Democrats. (PPC 2018) Deliberative Poll A deliberative poll by Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab in 2023, which provided respondents with briefing material and pro-con arguments, and allowed respondents to deliberate face-to-face with issue experts and other participants, asked respondents about proposals to increase campaign finance disclosure requirements. Requiring independent organizations such as PACs purchasing election campaign ads to disclose their top donors and officials, was favored by 79%, including 76% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats. Requiring all organizations that make election campaign expenditures to disclose their donors (over a certain minimum level), was favored by 81%, including 81% of Republicans and 84% of Democrats. Related Standard Polls Standard polls have found remarkably similar and consistent levels of bipartisan support, from 74-80%, for increasing disclosure requirements for campaign-related spending: Asked whether “all groups that raise and spend unlimited money to support candidates should be required to publicly disclose their contributors,” 76% said they should publicly disclose them (24% okay to remain private), including 78% of Republicans and 79% of Democrats. (November 2015, AP-NORC) Presented with the idea of requiring political campaign ads on social media to disclose their donors, 78% were in favor, including 80% of Republicans and 78% of Democrats. (October 2017, Marist) Asked whether disclosure requirements should apply to “groups not affiliated with a candidate that spend money during political campaigns,” 75% said they should publicly disclose their donors, including 76% of both Republicans and Democrats. (May 2015, CBS News/New York Times) Status of Proposed Legislation The proposal to increase disclosure requirements for donations to campaign-related TV or radio ads has been included in the Disclose Act since 2012. The bills have not yet made it out of committee. The above proposal was also part of the larger government reform bill For the People Act, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Merkley (S. 1) Rep. John Sarbanes (H.R. 1) in the 117th Congress, including the proposal to require government contractors to disclose their campaign contributions. This bill has passed the House, with all votes in favor coming from Democrats and all votes against from Republicans. It was not taken up by the Senate.
	Have the President require federal contractors to disclose their donations to campaign-related activities Survey: PPC, August 2017 Respondents were first presented a briefing and arguments for and against increasing campaign finance disclosure requirements (see above). They then told that some Federal contractors are large campaign donors, and evaluated the following proposal: the President requiring Federal contractors to publicly disclose their donations to groups that spend money on campaign-related activities An overwhelmingly bipartisan majority (85%) recommended their Member of Congress vote in favor of this proposal, including 84% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats. Over six in ten (63%) said they thought it would be effective (very 18%). Demographics Deliberative poll A deliberative poll by Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab in 2023, which provided respondents with briefing material and pro-con arguments, and allowed respondents to deliberate face-to-face with issue experts and other participants, asked respondents about proposals to increase campaign finance disclosure requirements. Requiring all organizations that make election campaign expenditures to disclose their donors (over a certain minimum level), was favored by 81%, including 81% of Republicans and 84% of Democrats. Related Standard Polls Standard polls have found remarkably similar and consistent levels of bipartisan support, from 74-80%, for increasing disclosure requirements for campaign-related spending: Asked whether “all groups that raise and spend unlimited money to support candidates should be required to publicly disclose their contributors,” 76% said they should publicly disclose them (24% okay to remain private), including 78% of Republicans and 79% of Democrats. (November 2015, AP-NORC) Presented with the idea of requiring political campaign ads on social media to disclose their donors, 78% were in favor, including 80% of Republicans and 78% of Democrats. (October 2017, Marist) Asked whether disclosure requirements should apply to “groups not affiliated with a candidate that spend money during political campaigns,” 75% said they should publicly disclose their donors, including 76% of both Republicans and Democrats. (May 2015, CBS News/New York Times)
	To ensure that those making campaign donations from abroad are registered US voters, require all campaigns to get the address and CVV code of all credit card donors Survey: PPC, August 2017 Respondents evaluated a multi-part proposal which would require that: when campaigns get online credit card donations, in all cases, including those under $50, they must get and report the donor’s address; campaigns must also get from online credit card donations the CVV code on the credit card; donors who make online credit card donations from abroad be a registered voter in the US and provide their US voting address. A bipartisan majority of 79% recommended their Member of Congress vote in favor of this bill, including 85% of Republicans and 77% of Democrats. More Details Briefing There has been a concern that donations from foreign agents could influence political campaigns, and make politicians more responsive to foreign interests than US ones. Respondents were introduced to a two-part proposal to address the concern of illegal online donations to political campaigns by foreigners. First Part of the Proposal The first part of the proposal was presented, as follows: Currently, there is a bill in Congress that proponents say will reduce the possibility of illegal online donations to Federal campaigns made by foreigners, in excess of legal limits, or with stolen credit cards. Opponents say there is no evidence these are real problems and that the proposed solutions discourage people from making donations. As you may know, it is illegal for foreign sources—individuals or organizations—to make contributions to US campaigns. However, Americans living abroad may make such donations. The bill would: require that donors to Federal campaigns who make online credit card donations from abroad are not only US citizens, but also registered voters and that they provide their US voting address. The argument in favor of this proposal did substantially better than the argument against. The pro argument was found convincing by 82%, and partisan responses were practically the same. The counter argument was found convincing by less than half, overall and among both Republicans and Democrats. Respondents were then presented with the full details of the proposal and asked to rate its acceptability on a 0-10 scale, with 5 being “just tolerable”, 86% found it at least tolerable (5-10), including 88% of Republicans and 86% of Democrats. Second Part of the Proposal Respondents were then introduced to the second part of the proposal: Here are some other provisions of the bill. Currently, when campaigns receive donations, of $50 or more, they are required to get the donor’s address, but this is not required if donations are under $50. The proposed bill that would require that when campaigns get online credit card donations: in all cases, including those under $50, they must get and report the donor’s address, they must also always get the CVV code on the credit card. For the argument in favor of this proposal, a large bipartisan majority found it convincing, with no significant partisan differences.Presented a counter argument, less than half found it convincing. Republicans were less likely to find it convincing (41%) than Democrats who were more divided (48%). Respondents were then given another set of arguments focusing on the potential for the use of stolen credit cards. The pro argument was found convincing by an overwhelming 86%, with the same level of support from Republicans and Democrats. The counter argument found more division, with 52% finding it convincing. Republicans were fairly evenly divided with Democrats leaning toward being convinced (56%). The Proposal as a Whole The details of the bill as a whole were then presented: the bill would require that when campaigns get online credit card donations: in all cases, including those under $50, they must get and report the donor’s address, they must always get the CVV code on the credit card. Respondents were then presented with “broader arguments” for and against the bill as a whole. The first argument was against the bill and was found convincing by 50% of respondents. There were slight partisan differences, with fewer Republicans finding it convincing (48%) than Democrats (53%). Presented with a counter argument in favor of the bill, a large bipartisan majority (82%) found it convincing. Final Recommendation Respondents were then presented all of the proposals in the bill at once, saying that it would require that: when campaigns get online credit card donations, in all cases, including those under $50, they must get and report the donor’s address; campaigns must also get from online credit card donations the CVV code on the credit card; donors who make online credit card donations from abroad be a registered voter in the US and provide their US voting address. Finally, they were asked whether they would recommend their Member of Congress vote in favor of or against the bill. Eight in ten respondents (79%) recommended that their Member of Congress vote in favor. Republicans were more likely to take this position (85%) than Democrats (77%). Demographics Status of Legislation The proposal to increase credit card donation requirements was in the Stop Foreign Donations Affecting Our Elections Act, sponsored by Rep. Paul Gosar (R) (H.R. 1341) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D) (S. 1660) in the 115th Congress. This bill did not make it out of committee, and was recently reintroduced by Rep. Paul Gosar (H.R. 1422) in the 116th Congress. This proposal is also included in the larger government reform bill For the People Act (H.R. 1), sponsored by Rep. John Sarbanes (D) in the 116th Congress. That bill passed the House, with all votes in favor coming from Democrats and all votes against from Republicans. It has yet to be taken up in the Senate.

Limiting Direct Fundraising

Prohibit direct person-to-person fundraising by Members of Congress

Survey: PPC, August 2017

Respondents evaluated the following proposal:

Members of Congress would be prohibited from personally asking a donor for money at any time. It allows them to attend and speak at fundraising events, but prohibits direct one-on-one appeals for donations.

A bipartisan majority of 55% recommended that their Member of Congress vote in favor of this proposal, including 51% of Republicans and 58% of Democrats.

Asked to rate the proposal’s acceptability along a 0-10 scale, with 5 being "just tolerable", a large majority of 71% found it at least tolerable (5-10), including 68% of Republicans and 73% of Democrats.

More Details

Briefing

Respondents were informed that there was a proposal that seeks to reduce the influence of big donors on Members of Congress and introduced to the following proposal:

Members of Congress would be prohibited from personally asking a donor for money at any time. It allows them to attend and speak at fundraising events, but prohibits direct one‐on‐one appeals for donations.

Arguments

A large bipartisan majority (71%) found convincing the argument in favor of this proposal. However, nearly as many (67%) found the argument against it convincing, with this same percentage among Republicans and Democrats.

Final Recommendation

Finally, a majority (55%) recommended that their Member of Congress vote in favor of this proposal. For Republicans this was a bare majority (51%), while Democrats it was nearly six in ten (58%).

Asked to rate the proposal’s acceptability along a 0-10 scale, 71% found it at least tolerable (5-10), including 68% of Republicans and 73% of Democrats.

Demographics

Status of Legislation
The proposal to prohibit candidates from direct person-to-person fundraising was in the Stop Act sponsored by Rep. Boyle (H.R. 528) in the 115th Congress, which did not make it out of committee. The proposal is not currently in any active legislation.

	Prohibit Foreign Funding of Ballot Initiatives
	Create a federal law that would prohibit foreign individuals, companies, or governments from spending money in an effort to influence the outcome of a ballot initiative Survey: PPC, February 2022 Respondents evaluated the following proposal: Create a federal law that would prohibit foreign individuals, companies, or governments from spending money in an effort to influence the outcome of a ballot initiative. In the end, a bipartisan majority of 79% favored the proposal (Republicans 77%, Democrats 84%, independents 74%). More Details Briefing Current federal law prohibits foreign funding to influence elections, but does not explicitly cover ballot initiatives. Several states have passed legislation to ban such funding. Members of Congress have recently introduced a proposal to prohibit all foreign funding of ballot initiatives across the country. Respondents were introduced to the context of the proposal, as follows: Currently, there is a debate about the fact that there are no federal limits on who can spend money to try to influence the campaigns for or against a ballot initiative, such as contributing to a campaign or paying for advertising. Several states have passed laws to prohibit such contributions. They were then told that there is a proposal to: Create a federal law that would prohibit foreign individuals, companies, or governments from spending money in an effort to influence the outcome of a ballot initiative. Arguments The argument in favor was found convincing by a very large bipartisan majority (84%, GOP 83%, Dem 89%, Ind 76%), while the argument against did substantially worse, with less than half finding it convincing (37%, GOP 37%, Dem 36%, Ind 40%). Final Recommendation In the end, an overwhelming bipartisan majority of eight in ten favored the proposal (79%, GOP 77%, Dem 84%, Ind 74%). Demographics Deliberative poll A deliberative poll by Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab in 2023, which provided respondents with briefing material and pro-con arguments, and allowed respondents to deliberate face-to-face with issue experts and other participants, asked respondents about a proposal to prevent foreign-controlled entities from making campaign-related expenditures, including advertisements regarding local measures. They found 86% were in favor, including 90% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats. Status of Legislation The proposal to prohibit foreign funding of ballot initiatives was put forward in legislation in the 118th Congress: Keeping Foreign Money out of Ballot Measures Act of 2023 (H.R. 4484) by Rep. Fitzpatrick Protecting Ballot Measures from Foreign Influence Act of 2023 (H.R. 3463, S. 1638) by Reps. Banks and Sen. Rubio None of the bills made it out of committee.
	Banning Stock Trading While in Office
Briefing Survey: PPC, July 2024 There has long been a concern that Members of Congress and other federal officials could use their inside information to trade stocks at an advantage, or have their decisions influenced by their current stock holdings. To address this concern, legislation has been put forward to place prohibitions on stock-trading of individual companies. Respondents were first introduced to the issue as follows: This survey is on the question of whether Members of Congress and other federal government officials should be able to hold or trade stocks in individual companies. Currently, Members of Congress can do so. There has been concern this could create a conflict of interest. Members of Congress get information that the public does not get, that can have an impact on the value of stocks or assets they may trade. Members of Congress and other federal officials also make decisions that affect the business prospects of companies they may hold stock or assets in. In 2012, a law was passed to address this concern. It requires Members of Congress to disclose all of their stock trades so that the public, ethics boards in Congress, and federal agencies can see if there is any conflict of interest and investigate any possible “insider trading.” Insider trading is when someone buys or sells stock based on information that is not available to the public, and is a felony that comes with prison time. There is currently a debate over whether it is enough to require just the disclosure of stock trading for Members of Congress, or if there should be greater restrictions. Respondents then evaluated three proposals for prohibiting stock trading in individual companies by: Members of Congress The President, Vice President and Supreme Court All federal employees
	Ban stock-trading for Members of Congress Survey: PPC, July 2024 Respondents were first presented a briefing on stock trading by government officials (see above). They then evaluated the following proposal: A proposal has been put forward in Congress that would actually ban Members of Congress (and family members that live with them) from trading stocks in individual companies. For any such stocks that they already own, they would have to either: Sell them -OR- Put them in a “blind trust” which an independent person manages and decides which stocks to buy or sell. However, Members of Congress would still be able to buy or sell shares of mutual funds or index funds that include stocks in numerous companies. A bipartisan majority of 86% favored the proposal (Republicans 87%, Democrats 88%, independents 81%). Arguments The arguments in favor did very well, with bipartisan majorities finding them convincing; while the arguments against were found convincing by less than half Related Standard Polls Standard polls have consistently shown bipartisan support for prohibiting Members of Congress and their families from trading stocks: Asked whether they support, “Banning stock trading for members of Congress,” 68% were in support (Republicans 66%, Democrats 67%) (October 2022, Morning Consult) Asked whether they support, “Banning stock trading for members of Congress’ families,” 63% were in support (Republicans 64%, Democrats 61%) (October 2022, Morning Consult) Status of Legislation The proposal to ban Members of Congress from stock-trading was introduced in the 118th Congress: TRUST in Congress Act (H.R. 345) by Rep. Spanberger (D) Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act (S. 3494) by Sen. Ossoff (D) ETHICS Act by Sen. Merkley (D) (S. 1131) and Rep. Krishnamoorthi (D) (H.R. 2678) Prohibit Insider Trading Act (H.R.1138) by Rep. Nunn (R) PELOSI Act (S. 439) by Sen. Hawley (R) Bipartisan Restoring Faith in Government Act (H.R.3003) by Rep. Fitzpatrick (R)
	Ban stock-trading for the President, Vice President, and Supreme Court Survey: PPC, July 2024 Respondents were first presented a briefing on stock trading by government officials, and then evaluated arguments for and against a ban on stock trading by Members of Congress (see above sections). Respondents were the introduced to the following proposal: Another proposal is to prohibit the President, the Vice President, and Supreme Court Justices from trading stocks in individual companies. Currently, these top-level officials are not required by law to disclose their stock trades. Many Presidents and Vice Presidents, though, have voluntarily disclosed their stock trading. The proposal is for any stocks in individuals companies that they already own, the President, the Vice President and Supreme Court Justices would have to either: Sell them -OR- Put them in a “blind trust” which an independent person manages and decides which stocks to buy or sell. A bipartisan majority of 87% favored the proposal (Republicans 87%, Democrats 90%, independents 82%). Standard Polls Polls have shown bipartisan support for banning stock-trading among top federal officials: Asked whether they support, “Banning stock trading for the President,” 67% were in support (Republicans 68%, Democrats 64%) (October 2022, Morning Consult) Asked whether they support, “Banning stock trading for the Vice President,” 67% were in support (Republicans 67%, Democrats 66%) (October 2022, Morning Consult) Asked whether they support, “Banning stock trading for U.S. Supreme Court Justices,” 65% were in support (Republicans 61%, Democrats 66%) (October 2022, Morning Consult) Status of Legislation Banning the President, Vice President and Supreme Court Justices from stock-trading was introduced in the 118th Congress: PORTFOLIO Act (H.R. 389) by Rep. Schweikert Eliminating Executive Branch Insider Trading Act (S. 693) by Sen. Hawley
	Do NOT ban stock trading by all federal employees Survey: PPC, July 2024 Respondents were first presented a briefing on stock trading by government officials (see above). They were then presented the following proposal: One more proposal is to prohibit *all* federal employees from trading stocks in individual companies. Currently, for senior employees in federal agencies, there are ethics rules against owning any stocks which could create a conflict of interest, and ethics boards which determine whether that is the case. If they are caught violating those rules, they would face penalties or be fired. The proposal is for any stocks in individuals companies that federal employees already own, they would have to either: Sell them -OR- Put them in a “blind trust” which an independent person manages and decides which stocks to buy or sell. In the end, this proposal was opposed by a bipartisan majority of 59% (Republicans 57%, Democrats 62%, independents 57%). Arguments The argument in favor was found convincing by a bipartisan majority, while the con argument was found convincing by less than half. Status of Legislation Banning all federal employees from stock-trading, including Post Office employees, was introduced in the 118th Congress in the PORTFOLIO Act (H.R. 389) by Rep. Schweikert.

Limiting Political Activity by Non-Profits

Maintain the prohibition against political activity, including campaign financing, by non-profits that receive tax-deductible donations

Survey: PPC, October 2017

Respondents were asked whether they want their Member of Congress to vote for or against a proposal to:

change current law and allow tax‐exempt organizations to endorse political candidates and provide them money and other support, while keeping the organization’s tax‐exempt status.

A bipartisan majority of 79% wanted their Member to vote against it, including 71% of Republicans as well as 88% of Democrats.

More Details

There has long been a concern that the 1954 Johnson Amendment -- which prohibits all non-profits receiving tax deductions from funding or publicly endorsing political candidates -- is violation of freedom of speech.

To address this concern, Members of Congress introduced legislation that would repeal the Johnson Amendment.

Briefing

To introduce respondents to this issue, they were first informed about the Johnson Amendment, as follows:

As you may know, under current law, there are certain organizations that do not have to pay taxes, such as religious institutions (churches, synagogues, or mosques), universities, foundations or other charities.

However, to keep this tax‐exempt status they cannot endorse political candidates or participate in political campaigns.

They were told that there is a bill in Congress which would reverse this law, “allowing tax‐exempt organizations to endorse political candidates and provide them money and other support, while keeping the organization’s tax‐exempt status.”

Arguments

They then evaluated three pairs of arguments for and against this proposal. The con arguments were found convincing by significantly larger shares (73 - 82%) than the pro arguments (46 - 58%). However, among Republicans, the pro and con arguments were found convincing by similar majorities.

Final Recommendation

Finally, an overwhelming majority of 79% opposed the proposal to allow churches and other non-profit organizations to endorse political candidates and provide them money and other support. This included 71% of Republicans as well as 88% of Democrats. Most (55%) said it is ‘very important’ to keep the current law.

Demographics

Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation
When a separate sample was told the results of the survey above, 82% said they agreed with the majority position, including 76% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats. (PPC 2018)

Status of Legislation
The proposal to repeal the 1954 Johnson Amendment -- which prohibits all non-profits receiving tax deductions from funding or publicly endorsing political candidates -- was based on H.R. 172 by Rep. Walter Jones in the 115th Congress. It did not make it out of committee.

	Limiting Lobbying by Former Government Officials
Briefing and Arguments Survey: PPC, June 2022 There has long been a concern that lobbyists have too much influence over government officials, and that the revolving door between government and lobbying groups has reduced the government’s responsiveness to the public as a whole. To address this concern, restrictions were put in place that required former government officials to wait a certain number of years before they could become lobbyists. Briefing Respondents were first introduced to this concern of former government officials becoming lobbyists: Because former Members of Congress and Executive Branch officials (such as those in the Department of Defense or the US Treasury) are very familiar with how government works and have strong personal connections throughout government, they can often work as lobbyists after they leave office. Currently, there are some limits on how soon a former government official can lobby the government after leaving office. The current rules around former government officials lobbying after they leave the government were then explained: Under current law, before they can lobby Congress: former House members must wait one year former Senators must wait two years senior Congressional staffers in both houses must wait one year In addition, senior Executive Branch officials are prohibited from lobbying the agency they were part of for 1‐2 years, depending on how senior they were. They were informed that there are proposals in Congress that would, “extend the period former Members of Congress and Executive Branch officials must wait after they leave office before they can work as lobbyists.” Arguments Arguments for and against extending the prohibition on lobbying were then evaluated. The arguments in favor were found convincing by large bipartisan majorities, while the arguments against were not found convincing by any majority, overall or in either party. They were then presented with a set of proposals: extend the period former Members of Congress must wait before working as a lobbyist from 1‐2 years to five years; or go further and prohibit former Members of Congress from working as a lobbyist for the rest of their life. extend the period a senior Congressional staffer would have to wait before working as a lobbyist from the current one year to two years extend the period a senior Executive Branch official would have to wait before lobbying the agency they worked for from 1‐2 years to five years
Extend the period government officials must wait after leaving office before they can work as lobbyists:
	for former Members of Congress to five years Survey: PPC, June 2022 Respondents were first presented a briefing and arguments for and against limiting lobbying by former government officials (see above). They were then asked to choose which policy they prefer when it comes to lobbying by former Members of Congress: Not having any required waiting period Keeping the current requirement that former House Members wait 1 year and former Senators wait 2 years before lobbying Adopting the proposal to extend the waiting period to 5 years before lobbying for all former Members of Congress Adopting the proposal to prohibit former Members of Congress from lobbying for the rest of their life A bipartisan majority of 77% recommended extending the waiting period for former Members of Congress from two years after leaving office to at least five years, including 80% of Republicans and 73% of Democrats. Demographics Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation When a separate sample was told the results of the survey above, 89% said they agreed with the majority position to extend the period after leaving office that government officials are prohibited from lobbying for former Members of Congress from the current two years to five years, including 89% of Republicans and 90% of Democrats. Eighty seven percent agreed with the majority position to extend the lobbying restriction for former Congressional staffers from the current one year to two years, including 87% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats. Eighty seven percent agreed with the majority position to extend the lobbying restriction for former senior Executive Branch officials from the current 1-2 years to five years, including 87% of Republicans and Democrats. (PPC 2018) Related Standard Polls Bipartisan majorities have supported putting restrictions on lobbying by former government officials. Asked whether they thought former Members of Congress “should not be permitted to become lobbyists once they leave office,” implying a permanent ban, 59% were in favor, including 60% of Republicans and 56% of Democrats. (September 2012, CBS News) Presented with a proposal to “Clean up lobbyists, and prevent government staff from cashing in on their connections in the private sector by closing the revolving door between the government and lobbying firms,” without any countervailing frame, 81% were in favor, including 75% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats. (November 2012, Democracy Corps) Status of Legislation The proposal to increase the waiting period for former Members of Congress from two to five years was in H.R. 383 by Rep. Bill Posey, H.R. 796 by Rep. Ron DeSantis, H.R. 346 by Rep. Dave Trott, H.R. 1934 by Rep. Mike Gallagher, H.R. 1951 by Rep. Tom O’Halleran and S. 522 by Sen. Jon Tester in the 115th Congress. This proposal was in the Public Service Integrity Act (H.R. 414) by Rep. Posey and the Cleaning up Washington Act (S. 751) by Sen. Tester in the 117th Congress, neither of which made it out of committee. The proposal to bar former Members of Congress from lobbying for the rest of their life is in the Banning Lobbying and Safeguarding Trust Act (S. 88) by Sen. Mike Braun and the Ban Congressmen Lobbyists Act by Rep. Van Orden in the 118th Congress. Neither made it out of committee.
	for former Congressional Staffers to two years Survey: PPC, June 2022 Respondents were first presented a briefing and arguments for and against limiting lobbying by former government officials (see above). They were then asked to choose which policy they prefer when it comes to lobbying by former senior Congressional staffers: Not having any limits Keeping the current requirement that they must wait 1 year before lobbying Adopting the proposal to extend the waiting period before lobbying to 2 years Extending the waiting period for senior Congressional staffers from the current one year to two years was recommended by a bipartisan majority of 77%, including 79% of Republicans and 74% of Democrats. Demographics Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation When a separate sample was told the results of the survey above, 89% said they agreed with the majority position to extend the period after leaving office that government officials are prohibited from lobbying for former Members of Congress from the current two years to five years, including 89% of Republicans and 90% of Democrats. Eighty seven percent agreed with the majority position to extend the lobbying restriction for former Congressional staffers from the current one year to two years, including 87% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats. Eighty seven percent agreed with the majority position to extend the lobbying restriction for former senior Executive Branch officials from the current 1-2 years to five years, including 87% of Republicans and Democrats. (PPC 2018) Related Standard Polls Bipartisan majorities have supported putting restrictions on lobbying by former government officials. Asked whether they thought former Members of Congress “should not be permitted to become lobbyists once they leave office,” implying a permanent ban, 59% were in favor, including 60% of Republicans and 56% of Democrats. (September 2012, CBS News) Presented with a proposal to “Clean up lobbyists, and prevent government staff from cashing in on their connections in the private sector by closing the revolving door between the government and lobbying firms,” without any countervailing frame, 81% were in favor, including 75% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats. (November 2012, Democracy Corps) Status of Legislation The proposal to increase the waiting period for former Congressional staffers from one year to two years was in H.R. 383 by Rep. Bill Posey in the 115th Congress, which did not make it out of committee. This proposal was reintroduced in the 117th Congress by the same sponsor (H.R. 414), did not make it out of committee.
	for former Executive Branch officials to five years Survey: PPC, June 2022 Respondents were first presented a briefing and arguments for and against limiting lobbying by former government officials (see above). They were then asked to choose which policy they prefer when it comes to lobbying by former senior Executive Branch officials: Not having any limits Keeping the current requirement that they must wait 1-2 years before lobbying depending on how senior their position was Adopting the proposal to extend the waiting period before lobbying to 5 years for all senior Executive Branch officials Extending the waiting period for senior executive branch officials from the current 1-2 years to five years was supported by a bipartisan majority of 75%, including 77% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats. Demographics Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation When a separate sample was told the results of the survey above, 89% said they agreed with the majority position to extend the period after leaving office that government officials are prohibited from lobbying for former Members of Congress from the current two years to five years, including 89% of Republicans and 90% of Democrats. Eighty seven percent agreed with the majority position to extend the lobbying restriction for former Congressional staffers from the current one year to two years, including 87% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats. Eighty seven percent agreed with the majority position to extend the lobbying restriction for former senior Executive Branch officials from the current 1-2 years to five years, including 87% of Republicans and Democrats. (PPC 2018) Related Standard Polls Bipartisan majorities have supported putting restrictions on lobbying by former government officials. Asked whether they thought former Members of Congress “should not be permitted to become lobbyists once they leave office,” implying a permanent ban, 59% were in favor, including 60% of Republicans and 56% of Democrats. (September 2012, CBS News) Presented with a proposal to “Clean up lobbyists, and prevent government staff from cashing in on their connections in the private sector by closing the revolving door between the government and lobbying firms,” without any countervailing frame, 81% were in favor, including 75% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats. (November 2012, Democracy Corps) Status of Legislation The proposal to increase the waiting period for former senior Executive Branch officials from 1-2 years to five years was based on H.R. 796 by Rep. Ron DeSantis, H.R. 484 by Rep. Peter DeFazio and H.R. 1934 by Rep. Mike Gallagher in the 115th Congress. None of these bills made it out of committee. In the 117th Congress, this proposal was in the Cleaning up Washington Act (S. 751) by Sen. Jon Tester, and the PURE Executive Act (H.R. 1830) by Rep. Hinson, both of which did not make it out of committee.
	Prohibit former senior Executive Branch officials from lobbying for foreign governments for the rest of their life Survey: PPC, June 2022 Respondents were first presented a briefing and arguments for and against limiting lobbying by former government officials (see above). They then evaluated a proposal to, "prohibit former senior Executive Branch officials from any lobbying on behalf of a foreign government for the rest of their life," including arguments for and against. In the end, the proposal was favored by a bipartisan majority of 75%, including 81% of Republicans and 70% of Democrats. More Details Briefing Respondents were given a briefing about the current laws and policies around lobbying for foreign governments. They were told: Americans can act as lobbyists for foreign governments, provided they register and report their activities to the US government. Former senior Executive Branch officials are prohibited from lobbying their former agency for 1‐2 years after they leave office, whether for a foreign or domestic client, but face no restrictions after that time period. The Trump administration has required that to be part of the current administration Executive Branch officials must pledge never to lobby for a foreign government after they leave office, but no law prohibits them from doing so and this would not necessarily apply to future administrations. They were then presented with a proposal to change the law: There is a proposed bill in Congress that would prohibit former senior Executive Branch officials from any lobbying on behalf of a foreign government for the rest of their life. Arguments Arguments for and against the proposal were evaluated, with the argument in favor doing overwhelmingly better -- by around 60 points -- then the argument against. There were no significant differences between the parties. Final Recommendation In the end, the proposal was favored by 75%, including 81% of Republicans and 70% of Democrats. Demographics Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation When a separate sample was told the results of the survey above, 87% said they agreed with the majority position, including 87% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats. The (PPC 2018) Related Standard Polls Standard polls have also shown broad support for prohibitions on former government officials lobbying for foreign governments, but also larger shares without well-formed views on the proposal: Asked whether they support a bill that would prohibit “the President, Vice President, members of Congress and other top-level appointed government officials from lobbying for any foreign government or corporation for ten years after leaving their government service,” 66% were in favor, including 71% of Republicans and 60% of Democrats. Just 20% were against the proposal, and 13% did not provide an answer. (May 2012, Democracy Corps/Public Action Campaign Fund) Status of Legislation The proposal to permanently ban former senior Executive Branch officials from lobbying for foreign governments was in H.R. 484 by Rep. Peter De Fazio and H.R. 796 by Rep. DeSantis in the 115th Congress. Neither bill made it out of committee. This proposal has been reintroduced in H.R. 2101, sponsored by Rep. Jared Huffman in the 116th Congress, which did not make it out of committee.

	MAKING HOUSE REDISTRICTING LESS PARTISAN
	Rather than state legislatures, have Congressional redistricting done by a citizen commission that is representative of the state’s demographics and partisan affiliations Survey: PPC, October 2017 Respondents evaluated the following proposal to change how Congressional districts are drawn: The shape of Congressional districts would be set by a commission of citizens within each state which would: be committed to designing districts in a way that is geographically natural and compact without creating a favorable distribution for either party be one third Republicans, one third Democrats, and one third independents, reflect the balance of the state according to gender, race, ethnicity and the geographic areas of the state. Decisions on the shape of districts would be made by a majority of the commission members that includes at least one member from both parties and an independent. A bipartisan majority of 66% were in favor, including 53% of Republicans, 80% of Democrats and 62% of independents. More Details Briefing There has been a concern that Members of Congress are not representative of the people in their states, and that one cause of this is the process of redistricting, which is generally controlled by the party in power. Respondents were first introduced to the topic of Congressional redistricting, and how the current system affects the responsiveness of Members of Congress: Another debate in Congress is about how the districts for the House of Representatives of the US Congress are designed. As you may know, every 10 years, with the new US Census, these districts are redesigned by state governments to adjust for population shifts. Usually this is done by state legislatures. Some Members of Congress are concerned that state legislatures, which are often dominated by one party or the other, try to design districts that favor their party. When legislatures do this, it is called gerrymandering. The proposal to change how redistricting is done, in order to reduce gerrymandering, was then introduced: In Congress, there is a proposal to have the shape of Congressional districts set by a commission of citizens within each state. Such citizen commissions are already being used in a few states. The proposal specifies that the commission of citizens would: be committed to designing districts in a way that is geographically natural and compact without creating a favorable distribution for either party be one third Republicans, one third Democrats, and one third independents, reflect the balance of the state according to gender, race, ethnicity and the geographic areas of the state. Decisions on the shape of districts would be made by a majority of the commission members that includes at least one member from both parties and an independent. Arguments Arguments for and against the proposal were then evaluated. The pro arguments did much better than those against, with substantial bipartisan majorities finding them convincing. There were partisan differences in responses to the con arguments, as majorities of Republicans found them convincing, while just a third of Democrats did. Final Recommendation Asked for their final recommendation, two thirds of respondents – including 53 percent of Republicans, 80 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of independents – favored having congressional districts drawn by a nonpartisan commission of citizens. They were also asked to rate the proposal’s acceptability using a 0-10 scale. It was found at least tolerable (5-10) by 80%, including 70% of Republicans and 87% of Democrats. Demographics Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation When a separate sample was told the results of the survey above, 86% said they agreed with the majority position, including 81% of Republicans and 91% of Democrats. (PPC 2018). Deliberative poll A deliberative poll by Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab in 2023, which provided respondents with briefing material and pro-con arguments, and allowed respondents to deliberate face-to-face, asked respondents about the proposal to require Congressional districts be drawn by independent commissions. They found 52% in favor, including 65% of Democrats. Among Republicans, 71% were not opposed. Related Standard Polls Bipartisan support for ending partisan gerrymandering has been high, even when respondents are told that doing so could hurt their own party: Given a choice between “Congressional districts that are drawn with no partisan bias, even if that means your own preferred party would not win as many seats,” and partisan gerrymandering “knowing that your preferred party would likely win more seats”, 73% chose not to have partisan gerrymandering, including 71% of Republicans and 74% of Democrats. Furthermore, 62% said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports partisan gerrymandering, including 57% of Republicans and 68% of Democrats. (2017, Lake Research Partners/WPA Intelligence) Status of Legislation The proposal to take control of redistricting away from state legislatures and put it in the hands of a non-partisan citizen commission was based on a provision in the Fair Representation Act (H.R 3057), sponsored by Rep. Don Beyer (D) in the 115th Congress. The bill did not make it out of committee, and has been reintroduced by Rep. Don Beyer (H.R. 4000) in the 116th Congress. The proposal is also part of the larger government reform bill For the People Act, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D) (S. 1) Rep. John Sarbanes (D) (H.R. 1) in the 117th Congress which passed the House, with all votes in favor coming from Democrats and all votes against from Republicans. The bill has yet to be taken up in the Senate.
	Create multi-member districts to better reflect the partisan distribution of the state Survey: PPC, October 2017 Respondents evaluated the following proposal: In a state with five or fewer Congressional districts, the state would still have the same number of House Members, but they would be elected by all of the state’s voters and represent the whole state. For states with more than five districts, the state would keep the same number of House Members, but the districts would be redesigned to be larger and have 3‐5 Members each. The 3‐5 House Members would be elected by all of the voters in these larger districts. A majority of 55% were in favor, including 66% of Democrats and 54% of independents. Among Republicans, only 44% were in favor, but a majority of 64% found the proposal at least tolerable (rated it 5 or higher on a 0-10 scale of acceptability). More Details Briefing There is a concern that Members of Congress are not representative of the people in their state, and that one cause of this is the way that districts are currently set up, especially in low-population states with few or just one district. To address this concern, Members of Congress have put forward a proposal to create multi-member districts. Respondents were given the following briefing about the proposal to change Congressional districts, as a means of increasing partisan representation in states: A current bill in Congress proposes a new way of structuring districts in the US House of Representatives. Proponents say this proposal addresses two issues In some states, all of their Members of Congress are from one party, even though a very large portion of the population identifies with the other party. Independents and third-party candidates have little chance of getting elected, even though a substantial number of voters might favor them. As you know, under current law, a Congressional district is represented by one Member of Congress, and each state elects two Senators, who represent the entire state. The idea of this proposal is one that is allowed by the Constitution. This proposal would make larger US House districts that would be represented by more than one Member of Congress. This would increase the likelihood Members of Congress would more accurately mirror the partisan mix of the population. Here is how it would work: In a state with five or fewer Congressional districts, the state would still have the same number of House Members, but they would be elected by all of the state’s voters and represent the whole state. For example, for a state with five Congressional districts, on the ballot there would be at least five Republicans and five Democrats, as well as possible independent and third-party candidates. Five U.S. House Members would be elected by all voters in the state. Results from research that has been done on the potential effects of this proposal were also presented: Research has been done on what the likely effect would be: election results would more closely mirror the partisan balance of the state. For example, Connecticut is a state in which all five House seats are currently held by Democrats and Oklahoma is one in which all five House seats are currently held by Republicans. The proposed system would likely result in 1-2 Republicans being elected in Connecticut and 1-2 Democrats in Oklahoma. For states with more than five districts, the state would keep the same number of House Members, but the districts would be redesigned to be larger and have 3-5 Members each. The 3-5 House Members would be elected by all of the voters in these larger districts. Arguments They then evaluated arguments for and against this proposal. The pro argument was found convincing by a bipartisan majority of three in four, while the con argument was found convincing by a majority of only Republicans, and just half nationally. Final Recommendation In the end, this proposal for multi-member districts was favored by 55%, including 66% of Democrats and 54% of independents. Among Republicans, only 44% favored the idea with 53% opposed. Asked to rate the proposal’s acceptability along a 0-10 scale, 71% found it at least tolerable (5-10), including 64% of Republicans and 78% of Democrats. Demographics Status of Legislation The proposal to create multi-member districts, so that representatives more accurately represent the partisan makeup of their state, was based on a provision in the Fair Representation Act (H.R 3057), sponsored by Rep. Beyer in the 115th Congress. The bill did not make it out of committee, and has been reintroduced by Rep. Beyer.

	IMPOSING CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS
	Pass a constitutional amendment to limit how many terms Members of Congress can stay in office Survey: PPC, February 2023 Respondents evaluated the following proposal: an amendment to the US Constitution to limit the number of terms that a Senator or House Member can serve A bipartisan majority of 83% were in favor, including 88% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats. More Details Briefing Respondents were introduced to the idea of establishing term limits as a way to increase responsiveness by elected officials in Congress, as follows: We will now turn to proposals that seek to increase the responsiveness of elected officials in Washington to the interests and views of the American people. One proposal is to have term limits for Members of Congress. The rationale is that once a Representative or Senator is in office, they tend to be re-elected. Incumbents win re-election races more than 90 percent of the time. Some people say that this makes it easier for long-standing Members of Congress not to pay close attention to the needs and views of their constituents. The proposal is to pass a Constitutional amendment to limit how many terms a member of the House or Senate may stay in office, similar to the term limits placed on the President. Arguments They evaluated arguments for and against the general idea of establishing term limits. The pro argument did substantially better nationally and among both parties, with less than half finding the con argument convincing. Only a modest majority of Democrats found the con convincing. Final Recommendation Asked whether their representative should vote for a constitutional amendment to create term limits, a bipartisan majority of 83% were in favor, including 88% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats. Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation When a separate sample was told the results of the survey above, 86% said they agreed with the majority position to pass a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on Members of Congress, with House Members limited to four two-year terms and Senators limited to three six-year terms, including 91% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats. (PPC 2018) Related Standard Polls Polls have found stable bipartisan majorities in support of imposing term limits on Members of Congress: Asked whether they favor, "limiting the number of terms that Members of Congress can serve," 87% were in favor, including 90% of Republicans and 86% of Democrats. (Pew Research Center, July 2023) Asked whether they support, “Establishing limits on the number of terms members of the U.S. Congress can serve,” 81% were in support, including 82% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats. (Fox News, July 2022) Asked whether they support, “putting limits on the number of times Senators and Congressman can run for office,” 82% were in favor, including 88% of Republicans and 73% of Democrats. (Quinnipiac University, November 2016) Status of Legislation The proposal to amend the constitution to establish term limits for Members of Congress has been introduced numerous times over the last few decades, none of which made it out of committee.
	Limit House Members to three 2-year terms and Senators to two 6-year terms Survey: PPC, August 2017 Respondents were first presented a briefing and arguments for and against amending the constitution to impose term limits on Members of Congress (the above section includes the briefing and arguments from the 2022 survey, which were identical to those in this 2017 survey.) They then evaluated the following proposal: House Members being limited to 3 terms and Senate Members being limited to 2 terms A bipartisan majority of 70% were in favor, including 76% of Republicans and 66% of Democrats. Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation When a separate sample was told the results of the survey above, 86% said they agreed with the majority position to pass a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on Members of Congress, with House Members limited to four two-year terms and Senators limited to three six-year terms, including 91% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats. (PPC 2018) Related Standard Polls Polls have found stable bipartisan majorities in support of imposing term limits on Members of Congress: Asked whether they favor, "limiting the number of terms that Members of Congress can serve," 87% were in favor, including 90% of Republicans and 86% of Democrats. (Pew Research Center, July 2023) Asked whether they support, “Establishing limits on the number of terms members of the U.S. Congress can serve,” 81% were in support, including 82% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats. (Fox News, July 2022) Asked whether they support, “putting limits on the number of times Senators and Congressman can run for office,” 82% were in favor, including 88% of Republicans and 73% of Democrats. (Quinnipiac University, November 2016) Status of Legislation The proposal to amend the constitution to establish term limits for Members of Congress has been introduced numerous times over the last few decades, none of which made it out of committee.

	ENABLING THIRD-PARTY AND INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES
	Make it more possible for independent and third-party candidates to compete in Presidential debates Survey: PPC, October 2017 Respondents evaluated the following proposal: make it more possible for an independent and third‐party candidate to be part of the presidential debates by replacing the current requirement with a requirement to that he or she succeeds in getting on the ballot in enough states to potentially win A bipartisan majority of 77% were in favor, including 75% of Republicans, 77% of Democrats and 83% of independents. More Details Briefing There is a concern that Presidential candidates are not as responsive to the public as a whole as they could be, because independent and third party candidates are not adequately represented in Presidential elections, which results in their supporters not getting their ideas and concerns heard. To address this concern, the organization in charge of Presidential debates (Commission on Presidential Debates) has proposed changing the requirement for candidates to make the debates: from needing to receive an average of 15% support in five major national polls, to fulfilling state requirements to be on the ballot, in enough states that they could conceivably win the election. Respondents were introduced to this proposal for getting more independent and third-party candidates into Presidential debates, as follows: The Commission on Presidential Debates controls these debates. Currently, the Commission requires that candidates must receive an average of 15% support in five major national polls just prior to the debate. An independent or third-party candidate has only met this requirement once since the Commission was established in 1987. Here is an alternative requirement that has been proposed to the Commission on Presidential Debates to make it more possible for an independent or third-party candidate to be part of the presidential debates: A candidate must fulfill the state requirements to be on the ballot (primarily getting signatures) in enough states that the candidate could conceivably win an election. If more than one candidate meets this condition, then the candidate who has gathered the most signatures across states would be the participant in the debates. Arguments Arguments for and against this proposal were evaluated. The pro argument did substantially better, nationally and of both parties, than the con argument, which was not found convincing by any majority. Final Recommendation Finally, respondents were presented the proposal again, as follows: The debates are a key moment during which voters see and hear the candidates who have a realistic chance of winning the election and becoming President. Having up on the stage another candidate who is not really a serious contender is a big distraction, driven by an excess of inclusiveness. The 15% polling requirement works to make sure only viable candidates participate and no one is prevented from meeting this standard. Just getting a lot of signatures, which can be done if you hire enough canvassers, is too low a bar. So, again, the proposal is to make it more possible for an independent and third‐party candidate to be part of the presidential debates by replacing the current requirement with a requirement to that he or she succeeds in getting on the ballot in enough states to potentially win. This was supported by 77%, including 75% of Republicans, 77% of Democrats and 83% of independents. Demographics Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation When a separate sample was told the results of the survey above, 91% said they agreed with the majority position, including 90% of Republicans and 92% of Democrats. (PPC 2018). Related Standard Polls A bipartisan majority has supported changing debate requirements to help include more third-party candidates in Presidential debates: Asked whether third party candidates should be included in the presidential debate if they are “certified for president by a majority of state ballots”, 76% said they should, including 66% of Republicans and 78% of Democrats. (August 2016, Suffolk University/USA Today) Support for including third-party candidates in Presidential debates declines among partisans when dealing with real-time third-party candidates: Respondents were given the options of including third party candidates Gary Johnson and/or Jill Stein in the Presidential debate, or “only the two major party nominees”. A modest majority of 55% chose one or both third party candidates, including 46% of Republicans and 48% Democrats. Among independents, 66% chose one or both. (September 2016, Monmouth University) Status of Proposal The proposal by the Commission on Presidential Debates to change the requirements for being included in a Presidential debate, from needing to receive an average of 15% support in five major national polls, to fulfilling state requirements to be on the ballot, in enough states that they could conceivably win the election, has not been adopted.
	Make it more possible for independent and third-party candidates to compete in Congressional elections Survey: PPC, October 2017 Respondents were asked whether, “the government [should] take steps to make it more possible for independent and third-party candidates to compete in Congressional elections.” A bipartisan majority of 74% were in favor, including 71% of Republicans and 75% of Democrats. Demographics Arguments Respondents were told that there is a “debate about whether the government should take steps to make it more possible for independent and third-party candidates to compete in Congressional elections” They then evaluated the arguments for and against making it easier for independent and third party candidates to compete. The pro argument did substantially better, nationally and among both parties than the con, which was not found convincing by any majority. Response Without Undergoing Policymaking Simulation When a separate sample was told the results of the survey above, 92% said they agreed with the majority position, including 89% of Republicans and 94% of Democrats. (PPC 2018) Status of Legislation A proposal similar to the one tested, which would make it easier for third party candidates to compete in Congressional elections, is currently in the Ballot Fairness Act, sponsored by Rep. Justin Amash (I) in the 116th Congress. This bill would require states to impose the same requirements for appearing on the ballot in a general congressional election on all candidates, without regard to whether a candidate is the nominee of a political party. It has not yet made it out of committee.
	Adopt ranked choice voting in federal elections to counter the potential spoiler-effect of independent or third-party candidates Survey: PPC, September 2021 Respondents evaluated a proposal to establish ranked choice voting (RCV) in all general federal elections, after being presented some of the critiques of the current election system. RCV was described as follows: Voters not only select their first choice but can also select their second choice of candidates. Then, if none of the candidates get a majority--like in a runoff--the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated. Voters who favored the eliminated candidate have their votes switched to their second choice (if they made one). The tally is then recalculated and the candidate with a majority of votes is the winner. If there are more than three candidates, the process is repeated until there is one candidate with a majority of votes counted. In the end, 61% were in favor of using “ranked choice voting in federal elections with three or more candidates," including 73% of Democrats and 55% of independents. Republicans were divided, with 49% in favor. However, asked how acceptable the proposal is on a 0-10 scale with 5 being "just tolerable", 51% of Republicans found the proposal at least tolerable (5-10). Briefing There is a concern that Congress is not as responsive to the public as a whole as it could be, in part due to the nature of Congressional elections, in which candidates can win without getting a majority of votes. To address this concern, Members of Congress put forward a proposal for adopting ranked choice voting in all federal elections. The proposal presented to respondents was based on a provision in the Fair Representation Act. To give respondents an understanding of the context in which RCV has been proposed, they were provided an overview of the problems that proponents say this method is intended to solve, as follows: *In an election with three candidates or more, the winner may not have anywhere near a majority of votes and might even be opposed by the majority of voters.* For example, say Candidate 1 gets 40% of the vote, Candidate 2 gets 30% and Candidate 3 gets 30%. Candidate 1 would win even though 60% voted for someone else. *In the current system a third candidate can have a “spoiler effect.”* This creates two problems: Say a voter prefers a third candidate that is an independent or from a third party, but strongly prefers Candidate A from one major party over Candidate B from the other major party. If that voter votes for the third candidate, they will take a vote away from Candidate A. If enough voters do this, it is possible that Candidate A could lose even when the majority would prefer them over Candidate B. Because voters are often afraid that this “spoiler effect” will happen, they do not vote for independent or third-party candidates even if they would like to. This makes it difficult for independent or third-party candidates to get traction. They were informed that some states have dealt with these issues by having run-off elections, in which the top two vote-getters compete in another election. They were told a common criticism of run-off elections is that they, “cost a substantial amount of money and tend to have lower voter turnout.” RCV was then introduced to respondents as an alternative to run-off elections. How RCV works was explained as follows: Voters not only select their first choice but can also select their second choice of candidates. Then, if none of the candidates get a majority--like in a runoff--the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated. Voters who favored the eliminated candidate have their votes switched to their second choice (if they made one). The tally is then recalculated and the candidate with a majority of votes is the winner. If there are more than three candidates, the process is repeated until there is one candidate with a majority of votes counted. The proposal, they were told, is to use, “this method of ranked choice voting in federal elections with three or more candidates.” Arguments Respondents evaluated three pairs of arguments for and against the proposal. All the pro arguments were found convincing by large and bipartisan majorities. The con arguments were found convincing by less than half overall, but small majorities of Republicans. Final Recommendation In the end, 61% were in favor of using RCV in all general federal elections with three or more candidates, including 73% of Democrats and 55% of independents. Republicans were divided, with 49% in favor. Resistance to the idea, however, is fairly low. In a separate question in which respondents were asked to rate the acceptability of the proposal along a 0-10 scale, with 5 being “just tolerable”, 60% found it at least tolerable (5-10), including 69% of Democrats and 51% of Republicans. Demographics Results from Past PPC Survey Another survey was conducted by PPC on ranked choice voting in 2018. The briefing was slightly different, and there were fewer arguments than the survey described above. Also, since then, several major RCV elections have taken place which received national media coverage. Support for RCV was slightly lower overall (55%) and among both Republicans (46%) and Democrats (64%). Interestingly, while the percentage of Republicans who favored the proposal increased from 46% in 2018 to 49% at the end of 2021, the percentage finding the proposal unacceptable also increased (from 37 to 49%) – a sign that many Republicans’ attitudes towards RCV have become more crystallized over the years. Results from Deliberative Democracy Lab A deliberative poll by Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab in 2023, which provided respondents with briefing material and pro-con arguments, and allowed respondents to deliberate face-to-face, asked respondents about the proposal to require ranked choice voting in Congressional elections. They found 52% in favor, including 70% of Democrats. Among Republicans, 65% were not opposed (34% were in favor, 27% “in the middle”, and 4% did not answer). Related Standard Polls Exit polls in cities and states that have adopted ranked choice voting have found majorities supporting its continued use and/or expansion to more elections, including in cities that had a runoff system in which the top-two candidates would compete in another election if neither got a majority of the vote. -- In Maine, after the 2018 elections, asked whether they favored expanding it to other elections, keeping it only for the elections its currently used in, or stop using it altogether, 61% stated they favored “expanding” it to more elections (53%) or “keeping” RCV in the elections it’s currently used in (8%). Thirty nine percent wanted to stop using it altogether. Among Democrats, 81% wanted to expand it. Among Republicans, 72% wanted to stop using it. (2018, Bangor Daily News) -- In Minneapolis after the 2017 elections, 70% of voters said they supported using ranked choice voting statewide, and 84% using it in municipal elections . This is similar to the 68% who supported its continued use in 2013. Partisan breakouts were not provided. (2017, 2013, Edison) -- In San Francisco, after the 2005 election, 55% chose the option “I prefer Ranked-Choice Voting to the former runoff system”, while just 17% preferred the former runoff system, and 28% had no preference between the two. After the 2004 election, 61% stated that they preferred RCV to their old system, including 56% of Republicans and 61% of Democrats. (2004, 2005 Public Research Institute) -- In Takoma Park, Maryland, 89% preferred RCV at least in local elections, 75% at least on the local and state level, and 55% on the local, state and national level. Partisan breakouts were not provided. (2007, FairVote) Status of Legislation The proposal to adopt ranked choice voting for all federal elections is in the Fair Representation Act (H.R. 3863), sponsored by Rep. Don Beyer (D) in the 117th Congress. This bill has not yet made it out of committee. A proposal to require states which receive federal funds for elections to make their election systems compatible with RCV is in the larger government reform bill For the People Act (H.R. 1, S. 1), sponsored by Rep. John Sarbanes (D) and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D) in the 117th Congress. This bill has passed the House, with all votes in favor coming from Democrats and all votes against from Republicans. The bill has yet to be taken up in the Senate.

	VOTING REFORMS
	Establish by law uniform national standards for in-person, mail-in, and early voting for Congressional elections (DDL) Survey: DDL, 2023 Respondents evaluated the following proposal: establish by law uniform national standards for in-person, mail-in, and early voting for Congressional elections After receiving the briefing material, respondents heard from issue experts and discussed the proposal with other participants. In the end, a bipartisan majority of 66% were in favor, including 61% of Republicans and 74% of Democrats. Briefing Respondents were provided the following briefing, as part of a deliberative poll conducted by Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab in 2023: Currently, the Election Clause of the Constitution gives state legislatures the ability to determine the detailed procedures for voting, subject to a congressional override with respect to congressional elections. Consequently, the United States lacks a set of uniform federal laws and regulations that apply to all states, because Congress has chosen not to exercise its power in this regard. Proponents of establishing uniform national voting laws argue that the status quo undermines faith in the democratic process. Currently, the votes cast for a federal election could be subjected to different laws and thus different treatment in the voting process. Establishing uniform national laws would create more equal treatment of votes and therefore strengthen faith in the democratic process. Proponents also argue that setting uniform national voting laws would combat current barriers to voting in various states. Instead of allowing states to set their own voting rules and regulations that could discourage or confuse voters, the federal government can implement one voting standard to ensure that the voting process is uniformly accessible. Opponents of uniform national voting standards point to the constitutional delegation of this responsibility to the states, with the federal government having only a secondary role. In addition, states have different traditions, and under principles of American federalism, they should be able to weigh these considerations in setting their procedures Arguments They were presented arguments in favor and against: Arguments for: Implementing national voting standards would increase confidence in the national democratic process. Implementing national voting standards would combat current barriers to voting in various states and thus ensure greater fairness and voter inclusion. Arguments against: States should set their own voting standards so that they can consider their particular traditions and conditions. Implementing national standards would politicize election administration at the nation al level. Standard Poll The Deliberative Democracy Lab also conducted a standard poll that asked respondents about the same policy. Without going through the full deliberative process, support for establishing by law uniform national standards for in-person, mail-in, and early voting for Congressional elections was still 66% overall, with no significant changes among Republicans (62%) or Democrats (77%). Status of Legislation A proposal to establish uniform national standards for voting in federal elections was introduced in the Freedom to Vote Act by Rep. Sarbanes (D) and Sen. Klobuchar (D) (H.R. 11, S. 1) in the 118th Congress. The bill has yet to make it out of committee.
	Allow citizens to register to vote online (DDL) Survey: DDL, 2023 Respondents evaluated the following proposal: allow citizens to register to vote online. After receiving the briefing material, respondents heard from issue experts and discussed the proposal with other participants. In the end, asked whether they favor or oppose the proposal on a 0-10 scale, a majority of 65% were in favor (6-10), including 81% of Democrats. Among Republicans, 65% were not oppose (50% in favor, 21% “in the middle” and 4% did not answer). Briefing Respondents were provided the following briefing, as part of a deliberative poll conducted by Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab in 2023: Currently, over half of the country’s states have implemented online voter registration, to allow citizens to register to vote and update their voter registration online. Proponents of an online voter registration system argue that the system can expand access to voting, by providing an additional and easy method for citizens to register to vote. Online registration could also be less costly for states, by reducing administrative costs of the paper-based voter registration process, such as the costs of printing and processing. The system could also increase efficiency and reduce the potential for clerical error when handling ballots. Opponents of an online voter registration system argue that it could be vulnerable to breaches or fraud by hackers. Thus, the system may be less secure than a traditional paper-based voter registration system. Some also suggest that voting is a privilege and voters should be sufficiently motivated to register to vote in person. Arguments They were presented arguments for and against: Arguments for: Online registration would expand access to voting by registering more people to vote. This system would increase efficiency and reduce the administrative costs and the potential for human errors associated with a traditional paper-based registration system. Arguments against: An online voter registration system may be vulnerable to breaches or fraud by hackers. People should be motivated enough to vote to register in person. Standard Poll The Deliberative Democracy Lab also conducted a standard poll that asked respondents about the same policy. Without going through the full deliberative process, support for allowing citizens to register to vote online was 19 points lower overall (46% in support, with another 20% in the middle); among Democrats it was 16 points lower (61% in support); and among Republicans it was 20 points lower (30% in support, with another 18% in the middle). Thus, without the full deliberation process, this proposal would not have bipartisan support, but would instead be divided along partisan lines. Status of Legislation A proposal to allow citizens to register online to vote in federal elections was introduced in the Freedom to Vote Act by Rep. Sarbanes (D) and Sen. Klobuchar (D) (H.R. 11, S. 1) in the 118th Congress. The bill has yet to make it out of committee.
	Allow citizens to register to vote on Election Day, with a government issued ID (DDL) Survey: DDL, 2023 Respondents evaluated the following proposal: allow citizens to register to vote on Election Day, with a government issued ID. After receiving the briefing material, respondents heard from issue experts and discussed the proposal with other participants. In the end, asked whether they favor or oppose the proposal on a 0-10 scale, a majority of 64% were in favor (6-10), including 79% of Democrats. Among Republicans, 61% were not opposed (47% in favor, 14% in the middle, and 1% did not answer). Briefing Respondents were provided the following briefing, as part of a deliberative poll conducted by Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab in 2023: Within the United States, different states have different voter registration requirements and deadlines. Almost half of the country’s states allow voters to register to vote and cast their ballots on Election Day. Proponents of allowing citizens to register to vote on Election Day, with proper ID, argue that this would increase voter turnout. Some voters get interested in elections only in the final days of a campaign. Same-day registration would draw in those voters with late-blooming interest. Moving homes close to Election Day may also be a barrier to voting. Voters moving to a new state must register before the deadline, which may be up to 30 days before Election Day. While some states allow voters to vote by mail or in person if they are unable to register in time in their new state, not all do. Same-day registration would avoid these complications by allowing voters to update their registration and then vote. Reducing barriers to voting also makes voting more accessible for minority groups. Opponents argue that allowing citizens to register to vote on Election Day may increase the risks of voter fraud, and therefore threaten the country’s election security. This is because administrative officials may lack the time, training, or resources to ensure citizens who register to vote on Election Day are eligible to vote, and that they are not voting multiple times. Furthermore, implementing same-day registration would complicate the work of poll-workers and be potentially costly. Arguments They were presented arguments for and against: Arguments for: Increases voter turnout. Makes voting more accessible to marginalized groups and to people who moved homes recently. Addresses the problem of people moving but forgetting to update their registration. Arguments against: May increase the risks of voter fraud on Election Day Can be complicated and costly and cause confusion on Election Day. May draw in voters who have not been paying attention to the campaign. Standard Polls The Deliberative Democracy Lab also conducted a standard poll that asked respondents about the same policy. Without going through the full deliberative process, support for allowing citizens to register to vote on Election Day was seven points lower overall (57%) and four point lower among Democrats (75%). Among Republicans, the total percent not opposed was five points lower at 56% (41% in favor, 12% in the middle and 3% did not answer). Other standard polls have found majorities, but less than half of Republicans, in support of allowing people to register to vote on Election Day, but these polls did not include the prerequisite of providing a government-issued ID: Asked whether they favor, "Allowing people to register on Election Day at the polls," 57% were in favor, including 76% of Democrats, but just 39% of Republicans. (Pew Research Center, January 2024) Asked whether they favor, “Expanding same-day voter registration,” 56% were in favor, including 78% of Democrats, but just 35% of Republicans. (Morning Consult, January 2022) Asked whether they support, “allowing people to register to vote and cast their ballot on Election Day,” 57% were in favor, including 82% of Democrats, but just 30% of Republicans. (UMass Amherst, December 2021) Status of Legislation A proposal to allow citizens to register to vote in federal elections on Election Day was introduced in the Freedom to Vote Act by Rep. Sarbanes (D) and Sen. Klobuchar (D) (H.R. 11, S. 1) in the 118th Congress. The bill has yet to make it out of committee.
	Establish automatic voter registration for all eligible voters with an option to opt-out (DDL) Survey: DDL, 2023 Respondents evaluated the following proposal: establish automatic voter registration for all eligible voters with an option to opt-out, was favored After receiving the briefing material, respondents heard from issue experts and discussed the proposal with other participants. In the end, asked whether they favor or oppose the proposal on a 0-10 scale, a majority of 56% were in favor (6-10), including 76% of Democrats. Among Republicans, 62% were not opposed (39% in favor, 21% in the middle, and 2% did not answer). Briefing Respondents were provided the following briefing, as part of a deliberative poll conducted by Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab in 2023: Universal automatic voter registration (AVR) would allow eligible voters to register to vote during regular interactions with a government agency, such as the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or other social service agencies.40 A citizen could also choose to opt out or register through another method. Enacting this proposal in more states or even at the federal level would allow millions of Americans to become automatically registered or to easily update their registration information. When citizens complete applications for government services, they fill out forms with their personal information. With AVR, this information would be sent electronically to elections officials, who would confirm their eligibility to vote. Depending on the state, citizens can opt out of being registered during or after their interaction with a government agency. In the states where AVR has not been implemented, individual citizens are still responsible for registering to vote themselves. Some scholars argue that in those states the current registration process burdens voters, who may have to register as early as 30 days before Election Day and miss registration deadlines. Enacting AVR would eliminate registration as a barrier for voting. Proponents also argue that even if citizens are automatically registered, they would still have the choice of whether to vote. AVR could make the electorate more representative of its population by registering more citizens who are ethnically diverse, living in rural areas, or from low-income backgrounds. With appropriate software AVR would be efficient and cost-effective. Government agencies would send citizens’ information to election officials electronically, which would be cheaper and less prone to human error than paper registration forms. Opponents of AVR contend that registering to vote is an individual choice that should be protected. In their eyes, those who do not register do not wish to. Thus, automatically registering citizens might violate their choice to not be registered to vote. Some critics also worry that AVR could lead to fraud since unprepared DMV officials with inadequate software could make mistakes when accessing the voter database. Arguments They were presented arguments for and against: Arguments for: AVR eliminates registration as a barrier to voting. AVR makes the electorate more representative. AVR is a cost-effective way of registering citizens while they interact with other government agencies. Arguments against: Although citizens can opt out, AVR still may violate citizens’ choice to not be registered to vote. AVR makes the system more vulnerable to fraud. Citizens should be motivated enough to take the initiative to register if they want to vote. Standard Polls The Deliberative Democracy Lab also conducted a standard poll that asked respondents about the same policy. Without going through the full deliberative process, support for establishing automatic voter registration for all eligible voters with an option to opt-out was eight points lower overall at 48% (with another 17% in the middle). Among Democrats support was nearly identical (74%). Among Republicans, the total percent not opposed was 11 points lower (26% in favor, 20% in the middle and 5% did not answer). Other standard polls have found majorities, but less than half of Republicans, in support of automatic voter registration: Asked whether they favor, "Automatically registering all eligible citizens to vote," 57% were in favor, including 79% of Democrats, but just 38% of Republicans. (Pew Research Center, January 2024) Asked whether they support, “Enacting automatic voter registration, whereby citizens are automatically registered to vote when they do business with the Department of Motor Vehicles or certain other state agencies,” 65% were in support, including 81% of Democrats, but just 47% of Republicans. (Gallup, July 2022) Asked whether they support, “automatically registering all eligible citizens to vote,” 52% were in support, including 80% of Democrats, but just 21% of Republicans. (UMass Amherst, December 2021) Asked whether they support, “automatically registering all eligible citizens to vote,” 61% were in support, including 82% of Democrats, but just 38% of Republicans (Pew Research Center, April 2021) Status of Legislation Proposals to establish automatic voter registration for federal elections have been introduced for several years, most recently in the Freedom to Vote Act by Rep. Sarbanes (D) and Sen. Klobuchar (D) (H.R. 11, S. 1), and the Register America to Vote Act by Sen. Klobuchar (D) (S. 2841). Neither bill has yet to make it out of committee.
	Make federal election day a national holiday (DDL) Survey: DDL, 2023 Respondents evaluated the following proposal: Make federal election day a national holiday. Respondents then discussed the proposal with other participants, as well as issue experts. In the end, asked whether they favor or oppose the proposal on a 0-10 scale, a majority of 59% were in favor (6-10), including 69% of Democrats. Among Republicans, 68% were not opposed (49% in favor, 17% in the middle and 3% did not answer). Arguments Respondents were provided the arguments for and against making the federal election day a national holiday, as part of a deliberative poll conducted by Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab in 2023: Arguments for: Many people find it difficult to vote in person due to their work obligations. Making this day a national holiday would make it easier for all Americans to vote. Symbolically, making election day a national holiday would be a powerful national affirmation of the importance of voting. Arguments against: Making the federal election voting day a holiday would be burdensome on private firms, adding costs for overtime and absent workers and potentially giving citizens a vacation day that might not necessarily result in more voting. With early voting and broad absentee voting, there are already many options to make voting convenient. Standard Polls The Deliberative Democracy Lab also conducted a standard poll that asked respondents about the same policy. Without going through the full deliberative process, support for making federal election day a national holiday was four points higher overall (63%), and seven points higher among Democrats (76%). Among Republicans, support was a few points higher and a majority (52%), but because the difference between Republicans in the standard poll and the deliberative poll is within the margin of error, it can not be concluded whether the deliberative process caused Republican support to drop below a majority. Other standard polls have found majorities in support of making Election Day a federal holiday, including majorities of Republicans in all but one case: Asked whether they favor, "Making Election Day a national holiday," 72% were in favor, including 78% of Democrats and 68% of Republicans. (Pew Research Center, January 2024) Asked whether they favor, “making election day a federal holiday,” 61% were in favor, including 72% of Democrats and 51% of Republicans (with just 35% opposed). (Morning Consult, January 2022) Asked whether they favor, “making Election Day a national holiday,” 68% were in support, including 78% of Democrats and 58% of Republicans. (Pew Research Center, April 2021) Asked whether they support, “making Election Day a national holiday,” 59% were in support, including 79% of Democrats. Among Republicans, just 38% were in support. (UMass Amherst, December 2021) Status of Legislation A proposal to make Election Day a federal holiday was introduced in the Freedom to Vote Act by Rep. Sarbanes (D) and Sen. Klobuchar (D) (H.R. 11, S. 1) in the 118th Congress. The bill has yet to make it out of committee.

	ELECTION INTEGRITY
	Require that all voting machines produce a paper record of the vote that the voter verifies and then drops in a ballot box (DDL) Survey: DDL, 2023 Respondents evaluated the following proposal: require that all voting machines produce a paper record of the vote that the voter verifies and then drops in a ballot box After receiving the briefing material, respondents heard from issue experts and discussed the proposal with other participants. In the end, the proposal was favored by a bipartisan majority of 63%, including 71% of Republicans and 55% of Democrats. Arguments Respondents were provided arguments for and against requiring that voting machines produce a paper record, as part of a deliberative poll conducted by Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab in 2023: Arguments for: Producing a paper receipt of the vote provides a paper trail that can be recounted in the event of a dispute. In the absence of this, there is no way to audit or recount the vote. A paper trail thus increases public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process and can help to resolve any election disputes Arguments against: Producing a paper record is not necessarily secure – a secure chain of custody is still needed if the paper records are to be used in a post-election audit. Many voters may not carefully examine the paper receipt but rather many simply drop it in the ballot box. Standard Polls The Deliberative Democracy Lab also conducted a standard poll that asked respondents about the same policy. Without going through the full deliberative process, support for requiring that all voting machines produce a paper record of the vote that the voter verifies and then drops in a ballot box was eight points lower overall (55%), and about the same among Republicans (73%). Among Democrats, the percent in favor was 11 points lower and dropped support to below a majority (44% in favor); but including the percent who chose “in the middle” (31%) or who did not answer (8%), the percent not opposed was still a majority. Another standard poll found large bipartisan majority support for requiring voting machines to produce paper backups: Asked whether they favor, “Requiring electronic voting machines to print a paper backup of the ballot,” 82% were in favor, including 85% of Democrats and 82% of Republicans. (January 2024, Pew Research Center) Asked the same question a few years earlier, 82% were in favor (Republicans 86%, Democrats 81%). (Pew Research Center, April 2021) Status of Legislation A proposal to require all electronic voting machines to produce a paper record was introduced in the Freedom to Vote Act by Rep. Sarbanes (D) and Sen. Klobuchar (D) (H.R. 11, S. 1) in the 118th Congress. The bill has yet to make it out of committee.
	Have each state require its voting jurisdictions to conduct an audit of a random sample of ballots in each election to ensure that the votes have been accurately counted (DDL) Survey: DDL, 2023 Respondents evaluated the following proposal: have each state require its voting jurisdictions to conduct an audit of a random sample of ballots in each election to ensure that the votes have been accurately counted After receiving the briefing material, respondents heard from issue experts and discussed the proposal with other participants. In the end, it was favored by a bipartisan majority of 63%, including 75% of Republicans and 58% of Democrats. Briefing Respondents were provided the following briefing, as part of a deliberative poll conducted by Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab in 2023: Election audits are an important way to check for any irregularities in election administration and can serve to enhance voter confidence. There is no national standard for auditing elections, and many different methods are possible. A random sample of ballots may be an efficient method. Risk limiting audits can adjust for different margins of victory. Arguments They were presented arguments for and against having each state require its voting jurisdictions to conduct an audit of a random sample of ballots in each election to ensure that the votes have been accurately counted: Arguments for: Election audits are an efficient way to root out errors and enhance voter confidence. Arguments against: It is unclear whether audits actually help to legitimize elections in the eyes of the public Standard Poll The Deliberative Democracy Lab also conducted a standard poll that asked respondents about the same policy. Without going through the full deliberative process, support for having each state require its voting jurisdictions to conduct an audit of a random sample of ballots in each election to ensure that the votes have been accurately counted, was seven points lower overall (56%) and four points lower among Republicans (71%). Among Democrats, support was fourteen points lower and below a majority level (44%); but including those who were “in the middle” (33%) and those who did not answer (6%), the percent not opposed was still a majority. Status of Legislation A proposal to require post-election audits of a random sample of ballots for federal elections, to test for irregularities and fraud, was introduced in the Freedom to Vote Act by Rep. Sarbanes (D) and Sen. Klobuchar (D) (H.R. 11, S. 1) in the 118th Congress. The bill has yet to make it out of committee.
	Require all voters to provide a government-issued photo identification that was obtained with proof of citizenship (DDL) Survey: DDL, 2023 Respondents evaluated the following proposal: require all voters to provide a government-issued photo identification, obtained with proof of citizenship After receiving the briefing material, respondents heard from issue experts and discussed the proposal with other participants. In the end, asked whether they favor or oppose the proposal on a 0-10 scale, a majority of 59% were in favor (6-10), including 86% of Republicans. Among Democrats, 61% were not opposed (37% in favor, 21% in the middle, and 3% did not answer). Briefing Respondents were provided the following briefing for a proposal for an “ID requirement for voting,” as part of a deliberative poll conducted by Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab in 2023: More than half of states today require voters to provide some form of identification, ranging from non-photo ID to photo ID, when voting. Fifteen states do not require any form of identification from voters at the polls. Supporters of this proposal argue that requiring government-issued photo identification can combat voter fraud, by preventing in-person voter impersonation. Thus, this requirement could increase the electorate’s trust and confidence in the voting process. However, those who oppose this proposal argue that voters are already subject to perjury charges if they commit voter fraud. State penalties for voter fraud differ, as some states impose harsher penalties depending on the type of conduct involved. Nevertheless, voter fraud is considered a felony offense in most states. Requiring government-issued identification at the polls can be burdensome and expensive for elections administrators as well. Furthermore, requiring ID for voting may burden certain minority populations who are less likely to have government ID. Arguments They were presented arguments for and against requiring all voters to provide a government-issued photo identification that was obtained with proof of citizenship: Arguments for: Requiring government-issued photo identification at the polls can combat voter fraud and increase trust in the election process. A government-issued photo identification is necessary for other purposes as well. Requiring it for voting can help expand citizen access to what should be a right of all citizens to verified identity. Most other established democracies require photo IDs in order to vote in person. Arguments against: This proposal is unnecessary, because voters are already subject to perjury charges if they commit voter fraud. Requiring government-issued photo identification at the polls can be burdensome and expensive for elections administrators. This proposal may unfairly burden certain voters – such as minority and young voters, the elderly, people of color, and the disabled – all of whom are less likely to have the required ID. Standard Polls The Deliberative Democracy Lab also conducted a standard poll that asked respondents about the same policy. Without going through the full deliberative process, support for requiring all voters to provide a government-issued photo identification, obtained with proof of citizenship, was five points higher overall (64%), and unchanged among Republicans (88%). Among Democrats, the total not opposed was ten points higher (48% in favor, 18% in the middle, and 5% did not answer). Other standard polls have found large majority support for voter ID requirements, with majority or plurality support among Democrats: Asked whether they support, “Requiring all voters to show government issued photo identification to vote,” 81% were in favor (Republicans 95%, Democrats 69%) (Pew Research Center, January 2024) Asked the same question a few years earlier, 76% were in favor (Republicans 93%, Democrats 61%). (Pew Research Center, April 2021) Asked whether they support, “Requiring all voters to provide photo identification at their voting place in order to vote,” 79% were in favor, including 53% of Democrats and 97% of Republicans. (Gallup, July 2022) Asked whether they support, “Requiring all voters to show government issued photo identification to vote,” 67% were in support, including 93% of Republicans. Among Democrats, 50% were in support. Overall, 12% did not provide an answer. (UMass Amherst, December 2021) Asked whether they support, “Requiring all voters to show government issued photo identification to vote,” 76% were in support (Republicans 93%, Democrats 61%). (Pew Research Center, April 2021) Status of Legislation Numerous bills have been introduced to mandate voters show government-issued photo identification in order to vote in federal elections. This proposal is in the America Votes Act of 2023 by Rep. Larsen (R) (H.R. 861) and the Securing Our Elections Act by Rep. Fitzpatrick (R) (H.R. 154). Another bill would prohibit federal funding from going to any state or locality which does not require that voters provide government-issued photo identification to vote in federal elections: the One Citizen One Vote Act by Rep. Good (R) (H.R. 512). None of these bills have yet to make it out of committee.
	Install video monitors at all drop boxes for ballots to protect against fraud (DDL) Survey: DDL, 2023 Respondents evaluated the following proposal: install video monitors at all drop boxes for ballots to protect against fraud After receiving the briefing material, respondents heard from issue experts and discussed the proposal with other participants. In the end, asked whether they favor or oppose the proposal on a 0-10 scale, a majority of 53% were in favor, including 64% of Republicans, but less than half of Democrats. However, among Democrats, 69% were not opposed (43% in favor, 24% in the middle and 3% did not answer). Arguments Respondents were provided the following arguments for and against installing installing video monitors at all drop boxes for ballots to protect against fraud, as part of a deliberative poll conducted by Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab in 2023: Arguments for: Installing video monitors at all ballot drop boxes would discourage any efforts to tamper with or stuff the ballot boxes. If the monitors showed no evidence of efforts to tamper with the vote, this provision would increase public confidence in the election. Arguments against: Recording citizens at drop boxes might make those wary of government surveillance feel unsafe voting and further discourage political participation. There is already too much video surveillance in our society; we don’t need the government doing more of it. Standard Poll The Deliberative Democracy Lab also conducted a standard poll that asked respondents about the same policy. Without going through the full deliberative process, support for installing video monitors at all drop boxes for ballots to protect against fraud was eight points higher overall (61%), and 14 points higher among Republicans (78%). Among Democrats, the percent in favor was eight points higher and a majority (52%).
	Do NOT allow representatives from political parties and other groups to challenge the eligibility of voters as they cast their ballots at polling places and as officials count the votes at tabulation centers (DDL) Survey: DDL, 2023 Respondents evaluated the following proposal: allowing representatives from political parties and other groups to challenge the eligibility of voters as they cast their ballots at polling places and as officials count the votes at tabulation centers After receiving the briefing material, respondents heard from issue experts and discussed the proposal with other participants. In the end, asked whether they favor or oppose the proposal on a 0-10 scale, a bipartisan majority of 72% were in favor (6-10), including 63% of Republicans and 84% of Democrats. Arguments Respondents were provided the following arguments for and against allowing representatives from political parties and other groups to challenge the eligibility of voters as they cast their ballots at polling places and as officials count the votes at tabulation centers, as part of a deliberative poll conducted by Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab in 2023: Arguments for: Mere observation is insufficient to maintain the integrity of elections. Fraudulent or otherwise improper activity needs to be called out and stopped. It is better to challenge voter eligibility before ballots are cast rather than afterwards, which makes recounts very messy Arguments against: Without careful consideration of the qualifications of challengers and the process of making challenges, challenges might be used as a disguise for voter intimidation and suppression. Challenging the eligibility of voters is a sensitive task that should reside with election officials. Standard Poll The Deliberative Democracy Lab also conducted a standard poll that asked respondents about the same policy. Without going through the full deliberative process, opposition to the policy was 23 points lower overall and right below a majority (49%), but only a fifth were in favor (22%). Among Republicans, opposition was 33 points lower and well below a majority (30%), and there was a majority who were not opposed (37% in favor, 22% in the middle and 11% did not answer). Among Democrats, opposition was nine points lower (75%). Thus, the deliberative process resulted in bipartisan opposition to this policy.

SUPREME COURT REFORM

Require members of the Supreme Court to comply with the same ethical standards that apply to other federal judges (DDL)

Survey: DDL, 2023

Respondents evaluated the following proposal:

requiring members of the Supreme Court to comply with the same ethical standards that apply to other federal judges

After receiving briefing material, respondents deliberated on the proposal in-person. In the end, asked whether they favor or oppose the proposal on a 0-10 scale, a bipartisan majority of 88% were in favor (6-10), including 95% of Democrats, and 87% of Republicans.

Arguments

Respondents were provided the following arguments for and against, "requiring members of the Supreme Court to comply with the same ethical standards that apply to other federal judges," as part of a deliberative poll conducted by Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab in 2023:

Arguments for:

Clear ethical standards ensure that judges cannot be compromised by their financial or other relationships and are therefore crucial to upholding the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Supreme Court justices should not be held to a lower standard than other federal judges.
Explicit ethical standards for justices can increase public confidence in the legitimacy of the Supreme Court at a time when it is eroding

Arguments against:

Supreme Court justices already voluntarily follow the substance of the Judicial Conference Regulations, which guides lower court judges, as well as judicial opinions, historical practices, and advice from the Court’s Legal Office and their colleagues.
Requiring compliance with specific ethical standards may imply that justices may engage in unethical conduct, and this could undermine respect for the integrity and legitimacy of the Court.

Standard Polls
The Deliberative Democracy Lab also conducted a standard poll that asked respondents about the same policy. Without going through the full deliberative process, support for requiring members of the Supreme Court to comply with the same ethical standards that apply to other federal judges was 12 points lower overall (76%), ten points lower among Democrats (85%), and 14 points lower among Republicans (73%).

Other standard polls have found large bipartisan majority support for placing a binding ethics code on Supreme Court justices, similar to those placed on other federal judges:

Respondents were first told that, “Nearly all federal judges are beholden to a code of conduct that requires they “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities” and establishes penalties for violations of ethical standards. The nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are the only federal judges not bound by this code of conduct.” Then, asked whether, “the justices of the Supreme Court be held to a formal code of ethics,” 90% said yes they should, including 96% of Democrats and 84% of Republicans. (UMass Amherst, June 2023)
Told that, “Uniquely among Federal courts, the U.S. Supreme Court does not have a code of ethics to provide guidance on matters such as conflict of interest for the justices,” and asked whether, “Supreme Court justices need their own Code of Ethics or do their actions receive enough public scrutiny that no official Code of Ethics is needed,” 72% said they need their own code of ethics, including 77% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans. (C-SPAN/Pierrepont, March 2022)
Asked whether they support, “Binding [Supreme Court] justices to a code of ethics,” 75% were in support, including 81% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans. (Politico/Morning Consult, September 2023)

Status of Legislation
The proposal to require Supreme Court justices abide by the same code of ethics that other federal judges are required to abide by is in:

The Supreme Court Ethics Act by Rep. Johnson (D) and Sen. Murphy (D) (H.R. 927, S. 325)
Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023 by Rep. Johnson (D) and Sen. Whitehouse (D) (H.R. 926, S. 359)