Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)

Permanent URI for this communityhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/10116

Browse

Now showing 1 - 20 of 28

Americans Evaluate Campaign Finance Reform
(2018-05) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Martens, Francesca; Lewitus, Evan Charles
A major study of voters’ views of campaign finance finds that large majorities support numerous bills in Congress that seek to reduce or offset the influence of big campaign donors. These include bills that call for a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision, increasing disclosure requirements for campaign donations, and promoting more small campaign donations. The questionnaire includes findings on a Constitutional Amendment to limit the terms of Congressional Representatives though they were not referenced explicitly in the report.
Americans on International Trade Policy
(2019-06) Kull, Steven; Destler, I. M.; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles
Promoting the Growth of Trade Through an International Rules-Based System: Respondents were introduced to the international system for promoting international trade—two-thirds said they were familiar with it. Evaluating arguments for and against continuing to seek to further the growth of international trade through international agreements, in most cases large majorities from both parties found both pro and con arguments convincing, with Democrats responding more to the pro arguments and Republicans responding more to the con arguments. Nonetheless, in the end an overwhelming bipartisan majority approved of United States, together with other countries, promoting international trade through a set of agreed-on rules that seek to lower barriers to trade and to ensure trade is done fairly. The World Trade Organization: A very large majority approved of the US continuing to be part of the World Trade Organization, though for Republicans this was only a modest majority, while Democrats approved overwhelmingly. MITIGATING THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF TRADE: Increasing Unemployment Benefits: As a means of addressing some of the negative effects of trade, a bipartisan majority favored increasing unemployment benefits, with a majority favoring increasing the amount from 39% to 50% of previous earnings. However, a bipartisan majority did not support increasing the maximum period of unemployment benefits beyond the current average of 26 weeks. Worker Retraining and Education: Presented several proposals for job training and education under consideration in Congress, very large bipartisan majorities favored proposals to increase spending on training for jobs in cybersecurity and the energy industry, and a proposal to provide employers a tax credit for apprenticeship programs. Trade Adjustment Assistance: A majority of six in ten favored expanding the Trade Adjustment Assistance program to more people who get laid off from their job directly because of an increase in trade, however six in ten Republicans were opposed. Just four in ten, but a modest majority of Democrats, favored extending such assistance to all people who get laid off from their job. Labor and Environment Standards in Trade Agreements: Overwhelming bipartisan majorities favored including in new international trade agreements the requirement that countries abide by both the labor and environmental standards they have committed to, that they do not lower their standards to attract business or to get a competitive edge, and that there is an effective system for enforcing these requirements. Impact of Mitigating Negative Effects on Attitudes About Trade: Respondents who disapproved of promoting greater trade through international agreements, while also favoring steps to mitigate the negative effects, were asked how they would feel about the promoting trade if the mitigating steps they favored were adopted. About half said that they would then favor promoting greater trade through international agreements. THE USE OF TARIFFS: Steel Tariffs: Voters divided sharply along party lines on the US administration invoking the national security exemption and imposing tariffs of 25% on steel imports and 10% on aluminum imports, with a large majority of Republicans approving and a large majority of Democrats disapproving. Overall, a very slight majority approved. Tariffs on China: Voters divided along party lines on whether the US should have imposed tariffs on China without first getting a WTO ruling. Going forward, a modest majority opposed imposing additional tariffs on China to get them to change their trade practices, but instead favored working through the WTO to get a ruling against China. Views on both issues are highly polarized along partisan lines with large majorities of Democrats favoring working through the WTO and large majorities of Republicans favoring imposing tariffs. North American Trade: NAFTA and the USMCA: Asked about the original North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) agreement, a very large majority, including a majority of Republicans, expressed approval. Told about the proposed U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) agreement, a slight majority favored it, with large majority of Republicans in support and a modest majority of Democrats opposed. If Congress does not approve the USMCA deal, a large majority favors staying in NAFTA. Those who favored the new USMCA agreement and approved the steel and aluminum tariffs were asked whether they would be willing to lift the new steel and aluminum tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico if it appears necessary to get an agreement on USMCA; most said they would.
Americans on Nato
(2019-04) Kull, Steve; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles; Read, Emmaly
Celebrations of the 70th anniversary of NATO on April 4 may be clouded by concerns about statements by Donald Trump questioning the US commitment to NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. However, a new survey finds that 83% of American voters favor the US continuing to be part of NATO, including 90% of Democrats, but also 77% of Republicans and 76% of those who voted for Trump. Concerns about the US commitment to NATO have been sparked by Donald Trump’s characterization of NATO as “obsolete,” and his statements that he might consider withdrawing the US from NATO if other NATO members do not increase their military spending. Respondents were informed about the controversy stemming from US pressure to get European NATO allies to spend more on their militaries. While the European allies have agreed to raise their spending to two percent of GDP, many have failed to do so. Presented three options, only 12% endorsed pressing European allies “to spend more on their military and say that if they do not the US will disengage from Europe militarily and possibly withdraw from NATO”—21% of Republicans, 4% of Democrats. Thirty-five percent favored pressing the Europeans but not making threats.
Americans on Nuclear Weapons
(2019-05) Kull, Steven; Gallagher, Nancy; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles; Read, Emmaly
US-Russian Arms Control Treaties: More than eight in ten favor the US continuing to have arms control treaties with Russia, with support among Republicans comparable to that of Democrats. Extending New START: Eight in ten favor the United States agreeing to extend the New START Treaty. Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty: Two thirds, including a majority of Republicans, oppose withdrawing from the INF Treaty and favor instead staying within the Treaty and redoubling efforts to work with the Russians to address concerns of both sides. Nuclear Weapons Testing: Overwhelming majorities from both parties approve of the US continuing its moratorium on nuclear testing, effectively abiding by the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. In the event the US develops a technological innovation that might make it possible to build a new type of nuclear weapon that could destroy more of an adversary’s nuclear weapons, a majority still said they would oppose breaking the moratorium, though a bare majority of Republicans favored it. US NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAPABILITIES: Minimum Retaliatory Capability: Eight in ten or more from both parties support the US having a retaliatory nuclear capability destructive enough that no country could think that there would be any advantage in attacking the United States with nuclear weapons. Low Yield Warheads and the Need for Matching Nuclear Options Respondents were presented a rationale for developing nuclear capabilities over and above the minimum retaliatory capability based on the need to threaten to match any type of nuclear capability an adversary might use. When presented a specific example of the current debate over whether the US should put low-yield nuclear warheads on missiles on submarines to match corresponding Russian capabilities, a bipartisan majority of two-thirds supported adding a low-yield option to nuclear missiles on submarines. Yet, when asked about the general principle, a plurality endorsed the view that a minimum retaliatory capability is adequate, over the view that the US must have the capability to retaliate against a major attack using only a type of weapon similar to the type the adversary used. Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs): Knowing that the United States currently has strategic weapons on submarines, bombers, and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, six in ten, including a majority of Republicans, favor phasing out the ICBM force. However, only one-third favor unilaterally reducing the net number of strategic warheads in the U.S. arsenal instead of putting more warheads on submarines and bombers to keep the same total as the Russians. FIRST USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS: US Declaratory Policy on First Use: Only one in five endorsed the United States explicitly declaring that it would consider using nuclear weapons first and stating what kinds of non-nuclear attacks would prompt the United States to consider doing so. Just slightly more than one in five favored explicitly declaring that the United States will never use nuclear weapons first. A majority favored continuing the current policy of being ambiguous about whether and under what conditions the United States would consider using nuclear weapons first. Presented a list of possible types of attack, less than one in six favored declaring that the United States would consider using nuclear weapons in response to any of them. Limiting Presidential First Use: Two thirds, including six in ten Republicans, support Congressional legislation requiring that to use nuclear weapons first, the President would first have to consult Congress and it would have to issue a declaration of war on the country to be attacked with nuclear weapons.
Americans on Police Reform
(2020-07-14) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan "Charles"
For decades now, there have been periodic efforts to reform police practices and laws regarding the use of force, especially deadly force, by law enforcement officers. The recent deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and other incidents of law enforcement officers using deadly force have stimulated protest and demands for policing reforms. The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act (H.R. 7120), sponsored by Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA), The JUSTICE Act (S. 3985), sponsored by Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), failed to get cloture in the U.S. Senate, meaning the measure could not proceed for debate or a vote. . The provisions in these two bills continue to the basis for ongoing debates over police reform, including: ● when police officers should use deadly force; ● what types of force police officers should be able to use, such as chokeholds; ● the use of no-knock warrants; ● the standards by which officers are held accountable for their use of excessive force; ● whether racial bias among police is a problem to be addressed; and ● how much regulation there should be of military equipment transferred to the police. Both bills address these issues, to different extents. The most significant difference between the House bill and the Senate bill is how mandatory the proposed reforms are. The House bill would require that police departments and local governments implement new policies or be denied access to federal funding for police departments. The Senate bill would offer police departments new funding for training and data collection, and only in a few cases requires that police departments adopt new policies. The House bill also includes provisions to change the standards by which officers are criminally convicted and held civilly liable, which the Senate bill does not. To bring the American people a voice at the table of the current debate on this legislation, the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) has conducted an in-depth on-line survey of over 3,000 registered voters with a probability-based sample provided by Nielsen Scarborough. Unlike standard polls that rely on respondents’ existing impressions and information, PPC took respondents through a process called a ‘policymaking simulation’ that seeks to put respondents in the shoes of a policymaker. Respondents: ● are given a briefing on policy options under consideration ● evaluate strongly stated arguments both for and against each option ● make their final recommendation. The content of the process is thoroughly reviewed by experts across the spectrum of opinion on the policy options to ensure that the briefing is accurate and balanced and that the arguments are the strongest ones being made by proponents and opponents.
AMERICANS ON THE FY 2020 FEDERAL BUDGET
(2019-08) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles; Koeppel, Austin; Read, Emmaly
As Congress lifts the national debt ceiling, increasing the budget deficit, a unique survey has found that bipartisan majorities are ready to cut the deficit by $376 billion, primarily by raising taxes on high incomes. The survey participants—who were shown the current deficit, and given the opportunity to propose changes in spending and taxes—proposed reversing the 2017 tax cuts for incomes over $200,000, treating capital gains and dividends as ordinary income for those with incomes over $200,000, and applying an extra tax of 4% on income over $5 million. In the interactive online survey, conducted by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation (PPC), a sample of 2,403 registered voters were presented the discretionary budget (broken into 34 line items) and the budget deficit for 2019. They were given the opportunity to modify spending levels up or down, getting immediate feedback on the impact of their changes on the deficit. While Congress is headed for increasing the defense budget, in the survey a majority cut it $51 billion (Republicans $14 billion, Democrats $101 billion). Majorities of both Republicans and Democrats cut subsidies to agricultural corporations by $7 billion and spending on federal enforcement of federal laws by $2 billion. While majorities of Republicans and Democrats made small increases to some programs, this did not extend to the majority of the whole sample. Overall, the majority made net reductions in spending of $70 billion. Republicans cut $52 billion, Democrats $111 billion, and converged on cuts of $27 billion.
Americans on U.S. Role in the Ukraine-Russia War
(2023-07) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan "Charles"; Thomas, JP; Bunn, Davis; Sapp, Bethany
In March of 2022, Russia launched a full invasion of Ukraine. The United Nations, including the US, quickly declared this invasion to be an act of aggression that violates Ukraine’s national sovereignty as guaranteed by the UN Charter. The invasion triggered a series of debates over the US’ role in this conflict: ● the degree of US intervention, if any; ● how to weigh any benefits of intervention against the risk of Russia escalating to nuclear attacks; ● whether to press Ukraine to enter peace negotiations, and if so, under what conditions. A bipartisan majority of seven-in-ten voters favor the US continuing to provide significant military aid to Ukraine to help in their ongoing war with Russia, according to an in-depth study by the Program for Public Consultation together with the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. Continuing to provide military aid to Ukraine, including military equipment, ammunition, training and intelligence, was favored by 69%, including 55% of Republicans, 87% of Democrats and 58% of independents. The sample was large enough to enable analysis of attitudes in very Republican and very Democratic districts based on Cook PVI ratings. In both very red and very blue congressional districts, equally large majorities (71%) favored continuing military aid.
Bipartisan Majorities Favor Tax Incentives For Clean Energy and Efficiency
(2020-11-13) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles
A new in-depth survey finds bipartisan majorities support a number of tax incentives that seek to reduce the use of fossil fuels. The proposals, all introduced in Congress, include measures to encourage developing alternative sources of clean energy–such as solar and wind, making homes and commercial buildings more energy efficient, and the use of electric vehicles. The support from majorities of Republicans and Democrats was rooted in voter concern about the health effects of fossil fuels as well as their impact on climate.
Large and Growing Majority Favors Permanent Paid Medical and Family Leave
(2020-04) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan; Read, Emmaly
While Congress passed legislation requiring temporary paid family and medical leave for those affected by the coronavirus, a new in-depth survey by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland (PPC) finds that two-thirds of Americans believe such paid leave should be permanent—fueled by a marked shift among Republican voters. In March, Congress passed a law providing two weeks of paid leave for people dealing with COVID or caring for someone who does, and 12 weeks at 2/3 pay for parents caring for children home from closed schools and childcare facilities. The new benefits are set to expire at the end of 2020.
Large Bipartisan Majorities Favor Prohibiting Sale of Property and Oil Reserves to Affiliates of Foreign Adversaries
(2023-07) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan "Charles"; Thomas, JP
– Large bipartisan majorities favor proposals that would prohibit the sale of US real estate and oil reserves to entities linked to foreign adversaries, including China and Russia. Three-quarters (73%) support a prohibition on the sale of property, including farmland; while 72% support a prohibition on selling oil from US oil reserves, according to an in-depth study by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. Concerns among Members of Congress over the US’ economic relations with its adversaries, particularly China, have been on the rise. This has been caused in part by increasing purchases of US agricultural land by Chinese companies; as well as the sale of US oil reserves to Chinese energy companies. Members of Congress and state legislatures have introduced legislation to address this issue. Rep. Gallagher, the Chairman of the House select committee on China, recently put forward a bipartisan bill which would give federal officials greater authority to block companies affiliated with foreign adversaries from acquiring certain US lands, particularly those near sensitive sites (e.g. military bases, telecommunication infrastructure.)
Large Majorities Favor Congressional Proposals Limiting Negative Consequences of Criminal Records
(2021-04-15) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan "Charles"
Large majorities of American voters support reforms that would limit or remove barriers to economic opportunities, housing, and voting for people with criminal records. A representative sample of 2,487 American voters were given a detailed presentation of numerous proposed Congressional reforms that would restrict employers, licensing boards and public housing authorities from disqualifying people based on their criminal records. All of the proposed reforms received support from large bipartisan majorities. A proposal for automatically restoring the right to vote for people who have served a felony sentence also received majority support, though Republicans were divided. Additionally, bipartisan majorities favored both making it easier for those who were arrested but never convicted to have their record sealed, as well as automatically sealing records for people with non-violent drug offenses after a short period of time.
Large Majorities Oppose Trump Administration Move to Allow More Offshore Drilling, Ease Inspection Requirements
(2018-05) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles; Martens, Francesca
A new survey of registered voters finds that 60% oppose the Trump Administration’s proposal to lift the ban on oil drilling along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and to expand the allowed area around Alaska. In the 17 states along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts that would be affected by the lifting of the ban, 64% are opposed. Respondents were told that among the 17 states that would be affected by the ban, in 15 of them the governors have requested a waiver that would keep the current drilling ban in place. Seventy-one percent of respondents favored granting these states such a waiver.
Majority of US Voters Oppose Tariffs on Solar Panels
(2018-04) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles; Martens, Francesca
A new survey finds that nearly six in ten voters oppose the new tariffs on solar panels imposed by the Trump administration, including a majority in very red districts. However, nearly six in ten Republicans favor the tariffs.
Overwhelming Bi-Partisan Majority Opposes Allowing Churches, Other Nonprofits, to Engage in Political Activity
(2017-11-28) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Martens, Francesca; Lewitus, Evan Charles
An overwhelming majority of 79% voters oppose the proposal to allow churches and other non-profit organizations to endorse political candidates and provide them money and other support. This includes 71% of Republicans as well as 88% of Democrats and 78% on independents. Most (55%) say it is ‘very important’ to keep the current law. The proposal to reverse the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits political activity by tax-exempt organizations, is in the House tax reform bill and in other proposed legislation, including H.R. 172, H.R. 781, and S. 264.
Overwhelming Bipartisan Majorities Favor Greater Restrictions on Lobbying by Former Government Officials
(2017-12) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles; Martens, Francesca
Overwhelming bipartisan majorities support proposed legislation that calls for extending the period that former government officials must wait before they can lobby the government and prohibiting former executive branch officials from ever lobbying on behalf of foreign governments. Similarly, large majorities favor ending the support the government currently provides for former US Presidents. Currently, former Members of Congress are prohibited from lobbying Congress for two years after leaving office. Proposed legislation H.R. 383 by Rep. Posey [R-FL-8], H.R. 796 by Rep. DeSantis [R-FL-6], H.R. 1951 by Rep. O’Halleran [D-AZ-1] and H.R. 346 by Rep. Trott [R-MI-11] calls for extending this period to five years. In the survey, 77 percent approved of such an extension, including 80% of Republicans and 73% of Democrats.
Overwhelming Bipartisan Majorities Support Bill Giving Judges Discretion to Moderate Prison Sentencing
(2018-08) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles
A new survey finds overwhelming bipartisan support for provisions in a bill that would give judges greater discretion to ease prison sentencing, sponsored by U.S. Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA). Some provisions were also contained in the House-passed First Step Act. Both pieces of legislation would roll back mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses that were set in the 1990s in response to a surge in crime, which has since abated. Such mandatory minimums played a key role in the more than doubling of the rates of incarceration that occurred in the subsequent decades. Proponents of the bill argue that this level of incarceration was an over-reaction that should be moderated, while opponents of the bill credit the high levels of incarceration with the reduction in crime.
Overwhelming Bipartisan Majority Opposes Repealing Net Neutrality
(2017-12) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Martens, Francesca; Lewitus, Evan Charles
Overwhelming bipartisan majorities oppose the plan that the Federal Communications Commission will consider this Thursday, December 14, to repeal the regulations requiring net neutrality. Respondents were given a short briefing and asked to evaluate arguments for and against the proposal before making their final recommendation. The survey content was reviewed by experts in favor and against net neutrality, to ensure that the briefing was accurate and balanced and that the strongest arguments were presented. At the conclusion, 83% opposed repealing net neutrality, including 75% of Republicans, as well as 89% of Democrats and 86% of independents.
Overwhelming Bipartisan Public Opposition to Repealing Net Neutrality Persists
(2018-04) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles; Martens, Francesca
Since the December 14 FCC decision to repeal the requirements that Internet service providers abide by net neutrality, the FCC continued to promote their decision as a means for promoting Internet innovation and have parried criticism that it will drive up costs for consumers saying that the Federal Trade Commission will be in a position to protect against unfair practices. However, a new survey finds that overwhelming bipartisan opposition persists even when presented the FCC arguments as well as opposing arguments. Eighty-six percent oppose the repeal of net neutrality, including 82% of Republicans and 90% of Democrats. This is up slightly from a survey conducted during the run-up to the December decision when 83% were opposed. Opposition among Republicans has increased from 75% to 82%, while Democrats have held steady.
Overwhelming Majority of Public Supports Making it More Possible for Third Candidate to Participate in Presidential Debates
(2018-04) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles; Martens, Francesca
As a Federal District Court considers a claim that the Commission on Presidential Debates should eliminate requirements that plaintiffs say effectively excludes a third, unaffiliated candidate from participating in the presidential debates, a new survey of American voters finds overwhelming support for making it more possible for a third candidate to participate in the presidential debates. A similarly large majority favors efforts to make it more possible for independent and third-party candidates to compete in Congressional elections.
Public Supports Reforming How Members of Congress are Elected
(2018-04) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles; Martens, Francesca
Majorities of voters support a number of bold reforms to change how members of Congress are elected, including having congressional districts drawn by independent citizen commissions, and adopting ranked choice voting and multi-member districts, according to a new, in-depth survey from the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation. These three reforms comprise new legislation – The Fair Representation Act – sponsored by Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) and cosponsored by Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md). The highest level of support was for changing the way that House congressional districts are designed—a prominent issue now that the Supreme Court is considering whether the federal government should prevent state legislatures from designing congressional districts to the benefit of the dominant party, popularly known as gerrymandering.