(CNN) - Fifty percent of adults say they would support government funding for all federal campaigns while banning private contributions, according to a national survey released Monday.
The Gallup poll showed 44% would oppose such a move, while 6% weren't sure. More Democrats (60%) than Republicans (41%) said they supported public financing.
Last year's political races was the most expensive on record; in total, candidates, parties and outside groups spent $7 billion during the 2012 election cycle, a record breaking – though not surprising – figure for campaign expenditures, according to the Federal Election Commission.
The agency said they expected those numbers to continue rising in coming years. Aside from the unlimited amounts that super PACs can raise, contributions to campaigns themselves are poised to spike. The FEC increased the limits on contributions to campaigns to $2,600 per election to keep up with inflation. The annual limit for individual contributions to party committees increased to $32,400.
The Gallup poll was conducted by telephone June 15-16 from 1,015 adults nationwide. The sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
CNN's Kevin Liptak contributed to this report.
Take corporate money out of elections and you have more fair elections. Take the political attack adds out and you have more fair elections. Town hall debates and meetings,policy speeches and community events,these are the bedrock of less corrupt elections.
Public financing of elections is needed because of the terrible conservative dominated Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United. Democracy is threatened when elections can be sold to the highest bidder.
I would only support that, if there were very stringent limits placed on campaign spending.
The buying of America, by politicians needs to come to an end, in ALL political parties.
It may be the only way to keep our elected officials from being wholly owned subsidiaries of the biggest and wealthiest in the nation.
Such a move would have to be a Constitutional amendment with formulae etched in stone so that one party or the other wouldn't try to gain advantage.
It sounds like it might be a good idea, but how would you decide who gets money and who does not? What if 1000 people got up enough signatures to run for Senator? Would taxpayers have to pay for a 1000 campaigns?
What will Karl Rove do for a job ?
There is no doubt that PAC`s, lobbys, and special interest groups have way too much power in our country. There is no government "by the people, for the people." I live in GA. Does anyone know why no one ran against Paul Brown in the last election? Because most believe that it would take huge amounts of money to even run! It is a shame that a person almost has to be rich just to run for office. Fixing this issue would dramatically change the face and voice of politics! Small extreme special interest groups should not have a HUGE influence on what goes on in congress. Other developed countries think we are stupid because we wate time debating abortion (the majority of people think it is OK), or stem cell research (also approved of by a majority of people.) Also what happened to the separation of church and state! A big reason for the existence of the US. I have respect for other peoples religions. I don`t even care if they put the 10 commandments in the courthouse! However conservative religious PAC`s have lots of money to influence our congress! By the way, someone should run against Paul Brown since Charles Darwin won the last election.
We need less outside money in politics. It creates problems in appearance of conflicts of interest and pay to play problems. It also means that only the wealthy can really run for office. The SCOTUS seemed to indicate that money is speech which means those with money are entitled to more speech which is wrong. It should be all should be heard to reflect the "one person, one vote" attitude that is reflected in the founding documents of the country.