|
|||
Late Breaking News |
|||
| Date: July 16, 1998 2:08 pm Contact:Jennifer Thorp, 202-296-5469, or Brian Bernhardt, 202-289-5900, both of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids www.tobaccofreekids.org |
|||
Latest News Releases
|
Pro-Tobacco Money, Votes Could Prove Damaging for Candidates | ||
| WASHINGTON - July 16 - New polling data released today by the Campaign
for Tobacco-Free Kids show the combination of accepting tobacco campaign contributions and
opposition to a national tobacco control policy may be lethal for candidates in the fall
elections. By nearly a 7-to-1 margin, voters are much more likely to vote for a candidate
who refuses tobacco money and supports a national tobacco control policy than one who
takes tobacco contributions and opposes such a policy. This trend is particularly strong
among women voters, according to the survey. "This poll provides a clear view of the political liability candidates could face this fall over the tobacco issue," said Bill Novelli, Campaign president. "Senators are now on record either standing with America's kids or standing with the tobacco industry. Those who opposed the national policy in the form of the McCain bill and also took significant tobacco money will face particularly intense voter reaction." The survey shows continued strong support for a national tobacco control policy, with 75 percent favoring and only 21 percent opposing when given basic information about what comprehensive legislation would include. The survey also shows that 39 percent of voters are more likely to vote for the candidate who supports the national policy, vs. only 17 percent who would vote for the candidate who opposes such a policy. When tobacco money is added to the equation, the impact on voting intention is even more dramatic. By a 40 percent margin (47 percent vs. 7 percent), voters are more likely to support the candidate who refuses tobacco money and supports a national tobacco control policy over the candidate who takes the money and opposes such a policy. What is most striking is the intensity of these views: nearly 30 percent of voters are much more likely to vote for the candidate refusing money and supporting tobacco control policy, while less than 5 percent were much more supportive of the pro-tobacco candidate. Last week, the CAMPAIGN released a scorecard detailing each Senator's votes on the McCain tobacco control legislation that was recently shelved by the full Senate, as well as tobacco PAC contributions each Senator has accepted over the last decade. The McCain bill contained similar provisions as those outlined in the Campaign voter survey. The bill was a comprehensive approach to tobacco control that would have imposed restrictions on youth access to tobacco, curtailed advertising that has the greatest influence on kids, created a national public education campaign, raised the price of cigarettes to discourage tobacco use among children, confirmed the authority of the FDA to regulate tobacco, and more. The McCain bill, or other tobacco legislation, could still be considered during the remainder of this congressional session. The scorecard showed a strong link between votes against the McCain bill and acceptance of tobacco campaign contributions. For the period of January 1, 1987 through the first quarter of 1998, the average tobacco contribution accepted by Senators opposing the McCain legislation was four times as much as was received by those who supported the bill: $34,083 compared to $8,108. Tobacco political action committee (PAC) contributions from January 1, 1987 through March 31, 1998 total $2,033,579 to current U.S. Senators and $5,301,574 to current House Members. "The tobacco industry has bought a temporary victory in the Congress," said Novelli. "But the American public is now saying that those who were influenced by political contributions and who successfully killed the bill may be in for a tough ride this November. There is still time this year for members of Congress to declare their independence from Big Tobacco and to work for comprehensive legislation that protects kids and saves lives." The poll also shows a significant increase in support among female voters for those candidates who refuse tobacco money and support a national tobacco control policy. More than 52 percent of women voters would be more likely to vote for the candidate who refuses tobacco money and supports a tobacco control policy, compared to less than 7 percent who would support the candidate who takes tobacco money and opposes such a policy. "Female voters are an important group for both political parties," continued Novelli. "This poll shows that protecting kids from tobacco will be a critical issue for women in the upcoming elections." The national survey of 835 registered voters was conducted July 6-8, 1998 by Market Facts' TeleNation. The full sample has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3.5 percentage points. ------ A copy of the poll summary follows. The scorecard may be viewed via the Campaign's Web site at www.tobaccofreekids.org. Copies are also available upon request. -- TAKING TOBACCO MONEY AND VOTING AGAINST KIDS IMPERILS CANDIDATES FINDINGS FROM A NATIONAL SURVEY To assess the effect of taking tobacco industry campaign contributions and opposing national tobacco policy on a candidate's electoral prospects, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids commissioned a national telephone survey of 835 registered voters from July 6-8, 1998. The results clearly show that the combination of taking tobacco money and opposing tobacco control legislation designed to protect kids may be a serious liability for Congressional candidates this fall. -- Q1: As you may know, Congress and the President have been considering legislation to develop a national tobacco policy to reduce tobacco use among kids. Such a policy would include public education to discourage kids from smoking, help for smokers to quit, enforcement of laws to prevent tobacco sales to kids and increases in the price of tobacco products to discourage use by kids. There would also be strict limitations on tobacco advertising and marketing to kids, as well as authority for the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco like it does other consumer products. Based on this description, do you favor or oppose a national tobacco policy to reduce tobacco use among kids? And do you strongly or somewhat (favor/oppose) such a policy? Response: Percentage: ----------- ------------- Favor (Net) 75.1 Strongly Favor 62.4 Somewhat Favor 12.7 Oppose (Net) 21.7 Strongly Oppose 15.3 Somewhat Oppose 6.4 Don't Know/Refused 3.2 ------ The sample of voters was then split in half at random, with each sub-sample asked a separate question. One sub-sample was simply asked how the effect of a candidate's position on a national tobacco control policy would affect their vote. The other sub-sample was asked how it would affect their vote if one candidate took tobacco money and opposed national tobacco policy, while the other refused tobacco money and supported such a policy. -- SPLIT SAMPLE (Each version asked of one-half the sample) Version A Q2a: Other things equal, if one candidate for Congress opposes a national tobacco policy and the other supports a national tobacco policy, would you be more likely to vote for the candidate who opposes a national tobacco policy, or the candidate who supports a national tobacco policy, or would it make no difference in your vote? (Would you be much more likely or somewhat more likely to vote for that candidate?) Response: Percentage: ----------- ------------- Supports Policy (Net) 38.9 Much more likely 28.6 Somewhat more likely 12.2 Opposes Policy (Net) 17.1 Much more likely 11.6 Somewhat more likely 5.4 No Difference 40.3 Don't Know/Refused 3.9 -- Version B Q2b: Other things equal, if one candidate for Congress accepts campaign contributions from the tobacco industry and opposes a national tobacco policy and the other refuses tobacco money and supports a national tobacco policy, would you be more likely to vote for the candidate who takes tobacco money and opposes a national tobacco policy, or the candidate who refuses to take tobacco money and supports a national tobacco policy, or would it make no difference in your vote? (Would you be much more likely or somewhat more likely to vote for that candidate?) Response: Percentage: ----------- ------------- Supports Policy/Refuses Money (Net) 46.5 Much more likely 29.5 Somewhat more likely 17.0 Opposes Policy/Takes Money (Net) 7.0 Much more likely 4.4 Somewhat more likely 2.6 No Difference 42.4 Don't Know/Refused 4.1 The survey was conducted by Market Facts' TeleNation from July 6-8, 1998. The full sample of 835 registered voters has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3.5 percentage points, while the two sub-samples have a margin of error of plus-or-minus 4.9 percentage points. ------ The Washington, D.C.-based CAMPAIGN FOR TOBACCO-FREE KIDS is the largest initiative ever undertaken to decrease youth tobacco use in the United States. Its mandate is to focus the nation's attention and action on keeping tobacco marketing from seducing children, and making tobacco less accessible to kids. -0- |
|||
