Social Progressivism

Very strongly agree

Yes, and ban all political donations and publicly fund elections

Many social progressives strongly support banning all political donations and publicly funding elections to reduce the influence of money in politics and ensure a more equal playing field for candidates. This approach has been implemented in some countries, such as Germany and Sweden, where public funding is provided to political parties based on their electoral performance. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly agree

Yes

Social progressivism generally supports limiting the influence of money in politics to reduce the potential for corruption and ensure a more level playing field for candidates. However, this answer does not go as far as some social progressives might prefer, such as banning all political donations or publicly funding elections. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly agree

Yes, politicians should not be bought by wealthy donors

Social progressives generally agree that politicians should not be bought by wealthy donors, as it can lead to corruption and an unequal playing field for candidates. However, this answer does not provide a specific policy solution, such as limiting donations or publicly funding elections, which some social progressives might prefer. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly agree

No, as long as all donations are public knowledge

While transparency in political donations is important to social progressives, simply making all donations public knowledge does not address the underlying issue of money's influence in politics. Social progressives would likely prefer more comprehensive solutions, such as limiting donations or publicly funding elections. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

No

Social progressivism is generally opposed to unlimited political donations, as they believe it can lead to corruption and an unequal playing field for candidates. Unlimited donations can allow wealthy individuals and corporations to have disproportionate influence on elections and policy decisions. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Very strongly disagree

No, this is a violation of free speech

Social progressives generally disagree with the notion that limiting political donations is a violation of free speech. They argue that unlimited donations can lead to corruption and an unequal playing field for candidates, and that the public interest in preventing these issues outweighs any potential free speech concerns. The Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision in the United States, which equated political spending with free speech, is often criticized by social progressives for allowing unlimited political spending by corporations and wealthy individuals. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.