| Results of Voter Roll Call Survey #16338 |
| Overview:
More than 500 registered voters in each of 19 Congressional Districts were interviewed by Voter Roll Call 03/10/10 through 03/14/10.
Results from interviews with 548 registered voters from Iowa's 3rd Congressional District are below. |
| 1 | Which of these 2 statements do you agree with more? (order rotated) One: Members of Congress are overly influenced by the people who give them money. Two: Members of Congress listen to constituents more than they listen to the people who give them money. |
| 548 Registered Voters | All | Gender | Age | <50 / 50+ | Race | Party Affiliation | Ideology | College | Income | |||||||||||||||
| Credibility Interval: ± 2.8 pct points | Male | Female | 18-34 | 35-49 | 50-64 | 65+ | 18-49 | 50+ | White | Black | Hispanic | Other | Republic | Democrat | Independ | Conserva | Moderate | Liberal | College | No Colle | < $40K | $40K - $ | > $80K | |
| Influenced By Donors | 88% | 92% | 84% | 83% | 89% | 96% | 81% | 86% | 90% | 88% | ** | ** | ** | 90% | 82% | 92% | 92% | 84% | 93% | 88% | 88% | 84% | 85% | 94% |
| Listen To Constituents | 11% | 8% | 14% | 15% | 10% | 4% | 18% | 13% | 9% | 11% | ** | ** | ** | 7% | 18% | 8% | 6% | 15% | 7% | 11% | 11% | 16% | 13% | 4% |
| Not Sure | 1% | 0% | 2% | 2% | 1% | 0% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 1% | ** | ** | ** | 3% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 2% | 1% |
| Total | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Composition of Registered Voters | 100% | 48% | 52% | 27% | 29% | 26% | 18% | 56% | 44% | 91% | 3% | 4% | 2% | 30% | 36% | 32% | 38% | 42% | 15% | 50% | 50% | 28% | 41% | 30% |
| 2 | Which of these 2 statements do you agree with more? (order rotated) One: Democrats have made a serious attempt to reduce the influence of special-interest money in politics? Two: Democrats have not done enough to reduce the influence of special- interest money in politics? |
| 548 Registered Voters | All | Gender | Age | <50 / 50+ | Race | Party Affiliation | Ideology | College | Income | |||||||||||||||
| Credibility Interval: ± 4 pct points | Male | Female | 18-34 | 35-49 | 50-64 | 65+ | 18-49 | 50+ | White | Black | Hispanic | Other | Republic | Democrat | Independ | Conserva | Moderate | Liberal | College | No Colle | < $40K | $40K - $ | > $80K | |
| Serious Attempt | 30% | 27% | 33% | 34% | 28% | 31% | 28% | 31% | 30% | 30% | ** | ** | ** | 4% | 57% | 26% | 8% | 42% | 46% | 31% | 29% | 34% | 29% | 27% |
| Have Not Done Enough | 67% | 71% | 64% | 61% | 70% | 69% | 70% | 66% | 69% | 68% | ** | ** | ** | 94% | 42% | 71% | 89% | 55% | 54% | 65% | 70% | 64% | 70% | 68% |
| Not Sure | 2% | 2% | 3% | 4% | 2% | 1% | 2% | 3% | 1% | 3% | ** | ** | ** | 2% | 1% | 3% | 3% | 3% | 0% | 4% | 1% | 2% | 1% | 5% |
| Total | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Composition of Registered Voters | 100% | 48% | 52% | 27% | 29% | 26% | 18% | 56% | 44% | 91% | 3% | 4% | 2% | 30% | 36% | 32% | 38% | 42% | 15% | 50% | 50% | 28% | 41% | 30% |
| 3 | A recent Supreme Court ruling allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose candidates for public office. Should corporations be able to spend money to support or oppose candidates for public office? |
| 548 Registered Voters | All | Gender | Age | <50 / 50+ | Race | Party Affiliation | Ideology | College | Income | |||||||||||||||
| Credibility Interval: ± 3.9 pct points | Male | Female | 18-34 | 35-49 | 50-64 | 65+ | 18-49 | 50+ | White | Black | Hispanic | Other | Republic | Democrat | Independ | Conserva | Moderate | Liberal | College | No Colle | < $40K | $40K - $ | > $80K | |
| Yes | 21% | 29% | 15% | 25% | 24% | 16% | 20% | 24% | 18% | 21% | ** | ** | ** | 29% | 15% | 23% | 34% | 14% | 12% | 22% | 20% | 18% | 20% | 23% |
| No | 70% | 65% | 74% | 72% | 63% | 76% | 69% | 67% | 73% | 72% | ** | ** | ** | 65% | 74% | 70% | 62% | 74% | 76% | 68% | 72% | 71% | 76% | 63% |
| Not Sure | 9% | 6% | 11% | 3% | 13% | 8% | 12% | 9% | 9% | 7% | ** | ** | ** | 6% | 10% | 8% | 4% | 12% | 12% | 10% | 8% | 10% | 4% | 14% |
| Total | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Composition of Registered Voters | 100% | 48% | 52% | 27% | 29% | 26% | 18% | 56% | 44% | 91% | 3% | 4% | 2% | 30% | 36% | 32% | 38% | 42% | 15% | 50% | 50% | 28% | 41% | 30% |
| 4 | Two laws have been proposed in response to this Supreme Court ruling. The first proposed law is this: any corporation that spends money to elect or defeat a candidate for public office will need to disclose the money it spends, and will require the corporate CEO to appear in the ad. Would such a new law limit the influence of special interests ... a lot? A little? Or not at all? |
| 548 Registered Voters | All | Gender | Age | <50 / 50+ | Race | Party Affiliation | Ideology | College | Income | |||||||||||||||
| Credibility Interval: ± 4.3 pct points | Male | Female | 18-34 | 35-49 | 50-64 | 65+ | 18-49 | 50+ | White | Black | Hispanic | Other | Republic | Democrat | Independ | Conserva | Moderate | Liberal | College | No Colle | < $40K | $40K - $ | > $80K | |
| A Lot | 26% | 21% | 31% | 23% | 20% | 26% | 40% | 22% | 32% | 25% | ** | ** | ** | 25% | 35% | 18% | 18% | 34% | 30% | 25% | 27% | 29% | 26% | 25% |
| A Little | 44% | 45% | 43% | 58% | 37% | 42% | 36% | 48% | 40% | 45% | ** | ** | ** | 49% | 42% | 43% | 50% | 38% | 47% | 43% | 45% | 46% | 45% | 40% |
| Not At All | 25% | 28% | 22% | 14% | 39% | 27% | 16% | 27% | 23% | 26% | ** | ** | ** | 20% | 17% | 37% | 27% | 25% | 19% | 27% | 22% | 20% | 24% | 31% |
| Not Sure | 5% | 6% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 6% | 7% | 4% | 6% | 4% | ** | ** | ** | 6% | 5% | 2% | 5% | 3% | 3% | 4% | 5% | 5% | 6% | 4% |
| Total | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Composition of Registered Voters | 100% | 48% | 52% | 27% | 29% | 26% | 18% | 56% | 44% | 91% | 3% | 4% | 2% | 30% | 36% | 32% | 38% | 42% | 15% | 50% | 50% | 28% | 41% | 30% |
| 5 | If your member of Congress votes FOR this new law, would you be more likely to vote to re-elect this member of congress? Less likely? Or would it make no difference? |
| 548 Registered Voters | All | Gender | Age | <50 / 50+ | Race | Party Affiliation | Ideology | College | Income | |||||||||||||||
| Credibility Interval: ± 4.3 pct points | Male | Female | 18-34 | 35-49 | 50-64 | 65+ | 18-49 | 50+ | White | Black | Hispanic | Other | Republic | Democrat | Independ | Conserva | Moderate | Liberal | College | No Colle | < $40K | $40K - $ | > $80K | |
| More Likely | 34% | 36% | 33% | 36% | 23% | 40% | 44% | 29% | 41% | 34% | ** | ** | ** | 21% | 52% | 28% | 20% | 44% | 47% | 38% | 31% | 38% | 34% | 30% |
| Less Likely | 23% | 26% | 21% | 13% | 25% | 30% | 26% | 19% | 28% | 23% | ** | ** | ** | 20% | 18% | 31% | 26% | 21% | 19% | 24% | 23% | 22% | 25% | 23% |
| No Difference | 39% | 35% | 43% | 50% | 50% | 25% | 24% | 50% | 25% | 39% | ** | ** | ** | 55% | 28% | 37% | 49% | 32% | 32% | 35% | 43% | 34% | 38% | 45% |
| Not Sure | 3% | 3% | 3% | 2% | 2% | 5% | 6% | 2% | 5% | 4% | ** | ** | ** | 4% | 2% | 4% | 5% | 2% | 2% | 3% | 4% | 6% | 3% | 2% |
| Total | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Composition of Registered Voters | 100% | 48% | 52% | 27% | 29% | 26% | 18% | 56% | 44% | 91% | 3% | 4% | 2% | 30% | 36% | 32% | 38% | 42% | 15% | 50% | 50% | 28% | 41% | 30% |
| 6 | The second proposed new law is this: Candidates for Congress could choose to accept money from special interests, OR choose to reject money from special interests. Those who reject money from special interests would receive public matching funds for all the small donations they raise in their own state. Candidates could not accept any contribution larger than $100. Would such a new law limit the influence of special interests ... a lot? A little? Or not at all? |
| 548 Registered Voters | All | Gender | Age | <50 / 50+ | Race | Party Affiliation | Ideology | College | Income | |||||||||||||||
| Credibility Interval: ± 4.3 pct points | Male | Female | 18-34 | 35-49 | 50-64 | 65+ | 18-49 | 50+ | White | Black | Hispanic | Other | Republic | Democrat | Independ | Conserva | Moderate | Liberal | College | No Colle | < $40K | $40K - $ | > $80K | |
| A Lot | 40% | 39% | 40% | 31% | 37% | 43% | 53% | 34% | 47% | 41% | ** | ** | ** | 36% | 48% | 35% | 36% | 45% | 37% | 36% | 44% | 50% | 33% | 42% |
| A Little | 29% | 30% | 29% | 30% | 28% | 30% | 29% | 29% | 30% | 30% | ** | ** | ** | 24% | 32% | 33% | 24% | 34% | 33% | 33% | 26% | 22% | 39% | 23% |
| Not At All | 26% | 26% | 26% | 38% | 28% | 21% | 12% | 33% | 17% | 25% | ** | ** | ** | 37% | 13% | 31% | 38% | 17% | 21% | 25% | 26% | 22% | 24% | 30% |
| Not Sure | 5% | 5% | 5% | 1% | 7% | 6% | 6% | 4% | 6% | 4% | ** | ** | ** | 4% | 8% | 2% | 3% | 4% | 9% | 6% | 4% | 5% | 4% | 5% |
| Total | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Composition of Registered Voters | 100% | 48% | 52% | 27% | 29% | 26% | 18% | 56% | 44% | 91% | 3% | 4% | 2% | 30% | 36% | 32% | 38% | 42% | 15% | 50% | 50% | 28% | 41% | 30% |
| 7 | If your member of Congress votes FOR this new law, would you be more likely to vote to re-elect this member of congress? Less likely? Or would it make no difference? |
| 548 Registered Voters | All | Gender | Age | <50 / 50+ | Race | Party Affiliation | Ideology | College | Income | |||||||||||||||
| Credibility Interval: ± 4.3 pct points | Male | Female | 18-34 | 35-49 | 50-64 | 65+ | 18-49 | 50+ | White | Black | Hispanic | Other | Republic | Democrat | Independ | Conserva | Moderate | Liberal | College | No Colle | < $40K | $40K - $ | > $80K | |
| More Likely | 40% | 42% | 38% | 28% | 39% | 45% | 53% | 34% | 48% | 39% | ** | ** | ** | 29% | 50% | 40% | 29% | 48% | 51% | 41% | 40% | 43% | 37% | 41% |
| Less Likely | 22% | 20% | 24% | 31% | 13% | 23% | 23% | 21% | 23% | 22% | ** | ** | ** | 26% | 19% | 24% | 29% | 20% | 13% | 23% | 20% | 15% | 31% | 16% |
| No Difference | 34% | 33% | 35% | 40% | 43% | 27% | 21% | 41% | 25% | 35% | ** | ** | ** | 44% | 26% | 34% | 41% | 29% | 29% | 33% | 35% | 38% | 31% | 37% |
| Not Sure | 4% | 4% | 3% | 2% | 5% | 5% | 4% | 3% | 4% | 3% | ** | ** | ** | 1% | 6% | 2% | 1% | 3% | 7% | 3% | 4% | 4% | 2% | 6% |
| Total | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Composition of Registered Voters | 100% | 48% | 52% | 27% | 29% | 26% | 18% | 56% | 44% | 91% | 3% | 4% | 2% | 30% | 36% | 32% | 38% | 42% | 15% | 50% | 50% | 28% | 41% | 30% |