Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)
Permanent URI for this communityhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/10116
Browse
28 results
Search Results
Item Americans on U.S. Role in the Ukraine-Russia War(2023-07) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan "Charles"; Thomas, JP; Bunn, Davis; Sapp, BethanyIn 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.Item Survey: Ban on Stock Trading for Members of Congress Favored by Overwhelming Bipartisan Majority(2023-07) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan "Charles"; Thomas, JPOverwhelming bipartisan majorities favor prohibiting stock-trading in individual companies by Members of Congress (86%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 88%, independents 81%), as well as the President, Vice President, and Supreme Court Justices (87%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 90%, independents 82%) according to an in-depth survey by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy.Item 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.)Item Six-in-Ten Voters Favor Carbon Fee and Rebate Plan(2021-03) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan "Charles"Bipartisan Majority Rejects Suspending Regulations on Emissions as Part of Plan – A new in-depth national survey finds that 62% of registered voters favor one of the few proposals for curbing greenhouse gas emissions that has support from both Republican and Democratic leaders — the carbon fee and rebate. This proposal would charge a fee on energy companies per ton of emissions (to encourage transitions to alternative energy sources), with a substantial portion of the costs presumably passed on to consumers in the form of higher energy costs (to encourage efficiency). To offset the higher energy costs, the revenue from the fee would be returned as a rebate to consumers on an equal basis. For low to middle income consumers the rebate would more than offset the higher energy costs. This proposal has been promoted by former Republican officials James Baker and the recent George Schultz as part of the Climate Leadership Council and was endorsed in a recent letter signed by over 3,500 economists, including dozens of Nobel Laureate winners, former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers, and former Chairs of the Federal Reserve Board, including both Republicans and Democrats. Variations of the proposal appear in several pieces of Congressional legislation including H.R. 763, S. 2284, H.R. 4051, S. 1128, S. 4484 and H.R. 4142 from the 116th Congress.Item Two-in-Three Voters Favor Creating National Green Bank(2021-06) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan "Charles"In a new in-depth survey, two-thirds of registered voters favored legislation calling for the federal government to create a national green bank to invest in and promote private investment in clean energy. Green banks are public, non-profit banks and currently exist at state and local levels. The legislative proposal respondents evaluated is called the National Climate Bank Act, which would create a national bank with $35 billion of seed money, to support existing green banks, help to create new ones in US cities and states, and invest directly in clean energy projects. The basis of the legislative proposals were two bills in the 116th Congress (National Green Bank Act and National Climate Bank Act). The National Climate Bank Act has been resubmitted in the 117th Congress and is earmarked at a higher level of funding.Item 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.Item Bipartisan Majorities Favor Tax Incentives For Clean Energy and Efficiency(2020-11-13) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan CharlesA 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.Item 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.Item Overwhelming Bipartisan Majorities Favor Greater Restrictions on Lobbying by Former Government Officials(2017-12) Kull, Steven; Fehsenfeld, Evan; Lewitus, Evan Charles; Martens, FrancescaOverwhelming 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.Item 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 CharlesAn 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.
- «
- 1 (current)
- 2
- 3
- »