Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
American Future Fund : Suspicious VCR Louisiana Poll
(Crossposted at Daily Kos)
A couple of weeks ago, the DNC filed an FEC complaint alleging that Freedom's Watch illegally coordinated with the National Republican Congressional Committee on an ad slamming Louisiana Democratic state representative Donald J. Cazayoux on taxes. Cazayoux and and Republican former state representative Woody Jenkins are in a tight congressional race for a May 3 special election.
Yesterday, American Future Fund, a 501(c)(4) GOP front, issued a press release announcing the results of a poll conducted between April 5-21 in Louisiana. According to pollster, Jan Van Lohuizen, “The survey points to a clear and convincing distrust of liberals in Congress on tax policy.”
Freedom's Watch runs an ad nailing a Louisiana Dem on taxes and American Future Fund (AFF) concurrently runs a poll in Louisiana that concludes taxes are a major issue.
Coincidence? I doubt it.
When I first read that G. W. Bush's preferred pollster, Jan Van Lohuizen of Voter Consumer Research (VCR), was involved in AFF, I speculated that AFF was going to commission polls for the benefit of Republican candidates as part of an off-the-books campaign financing scheme.
AFF is a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization as defined by the IRS. The advantage of being a 501(c)(4) is that AFF is not required to disclose the names of its donors and can accept unlimited amounts of money. The disadvantage is that AFF is limited as to what political activities it can engage in.
The IRS: "The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office."
What kind of poll did VCR conduct in Louisiana? Hard to say but I doubt if AFF actually paid for the one presented in its press release. The questions are so dumb that anyone who gave it half a minute's thought would suspect that the press release is cover for VCR's real polling in Louisiana.
Take the first question. 515 respondents were asked to select three of 10 issues that were important to him or her. I may be looking at the data incorrectly but the results don't appear to add up.
I took the results by percentage and calculated the number of respondents that ranked each issue.
1. 54% Jobs & the Economy - 515 x .54 = 278.1
2. 48% Education - 515 x .48 = 247.2
3. 39% Health care - 515 x .39 = 200.85
4. 31% The war in Iraq - 515 x .31 = 159.65
5. 21% Taxes - 515 x .21 = 108.15
6. 17% Energy - 515 x .17 = 87.55
7. 14% The environment - 515 x .14 = 72.1
8. 12% Domestic security - 515 x .12 = 61.8
9. 2% Other - 515 x .02 = 10.3
10. 1% Don’t know - 515 x .01 = 5.15
The total number of issues selected by respondents is 1230.85, rounded to 1231. If all 515 candidates had picked three issues, the total number of issues selected should 1545 (515 x 3). 313 non-responses appear unaccounted for. How scientific is that?
But based on answers to this question, Van Lohuizen concluded that "When combined with concerns about taxes, economic issues are far and away the most salient to the people of Louisiana."
I can combine concerns about health care with concerns about education and conclude that social welfare issues are more salient to the people of Louisiana than the combination of jobs, the economy and taxes. The results can be jiggered any number of ways.
If an actual poll was conducted with the issues labeled the way they are in the press release, the poll was deliberately conducted to achieve a certain result. Substitute "energy" with the "cost of gas and electricity" and I'm sure more than 17% of respondents would have selected it as an issue of concern. Same for replacing "environment" with "global warming" or "pollution".
Van Lohuizen isn't an idiot but he is a Republican operative who will do or say anything, no matter how stupid, to support the Republican Party and protect his livelihood.
Is the DNC going to get serious about American Future Fund? As I've posted here already, it looks like AFF is being run by the DCI Group and sponsored by the usual cast of right wing billionaires.
We've got to nip this sort of stuff in the bud if we want to win in November!
Comments (3)
"Van Lohuizen isn't an idiot but he is a Republican operative who will do or say anything, no matter how stupid, to support the Republican Party and protect his livelihood."
Sounds like an idiot to me...
Is there a better definition of an idiot these days than "a Republican operative who will do and say anything, no matter how stupid..."
April 30, 2008 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS... Keep after em' Mrs. P. you are doing here with campaign polling deception issues what Brad Friedman does at Bradblog with voter-integrity issues.
Just keep hammering away at them because the MSM won't do it.
April 30, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm so glad you're on the case again, Mrs. P.
One thing I see is an urgent need to tighten up the definition of what a 501(c)(4) truly is. "Social welfare" is too vague a criterion, and these groups arguably run counter to what the accepted meaning of social welfare is. That they receive tax-exempt status and do not have to disclose their donors is an open door to this kind of manipulation.
I would hope that the DNC is bringing Freedom's Watch into their complaint, with a challenge to the organization to demonstrate that their operations do not deviate from the IRS's requirements, even as they now stand. Also from the IRS Website:
Can it not be argued that Freedom's Watch represents a subgroup (Republicans, or more correctly, rich Republicans) in the same way as the example above of a tenants' group that represents only the tenants of one complex?
What is Freedom's Watch's primary activity if not to participate or intervene in political campaigns, and not-so indirectly?
While the IRS may be the only agency under the Administration that I have not heard has been politicized, it's unlikely that these requirements for 501(c)(4)s can be clarified and tightened for real-world application before the new Administration comes in. But this should be up there on the list of things to do, if not for now, then for the future.
April 30, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment