The poll asked the following question:
During election years, special interest groups such as unions, trial lawyers, banks, oil companies, environmentalists, and developers use political action committees, sometimes called PACs, to contribute to campaigns. If you had the choice between two otherwise equally qualified candidates, one who took campaign contributions from PACs and one who raised money only from individual contributions, would you be more likely to vote for the candidate who only accepts money from individuals or would you be more likely to vote for the candidate who accepts PAC contributions, or does it not matter to you in how you vote?
The issue seems to have a very positive benefit for candidates who don’t take PAC contributions with an even more pronounced appeal to voters who are more likely to vote (older voters) and more likely to be swing voters (women and the unaffiliated.)
The results are striking.
For all respondents, 58% would be more likely to vote for the candidate who did not take PAC money, and 3% would be more likely to vote for the candidate who did, for a net of 56% (numbers don’t add exactly to 100 because of rounding.)
For unaffiliated and women voters the issue is even more lopsided. Women are 61% to 1% for a net of 60%. Unaffiliateds are 66% to 2% for a net of 64%. Unaffiliated women are the best on the issue. The results for them is 68% to 0%, for a net of 68%.
Older voters are more likely than the norm to support a candidate who doesn’t take PAC money. Age 50 to 64 has a net of 61%, and age 65+ has a net of 64%.
The issue has had some discussion recently in light of Andrew Romanoff’s decision not to accept PAC contributions in his race for U.S. Congressional District 6.
The results of this poll indicate that his position on this issue has a pronounced appeal to Colorado’s swing voters.