We have almost unlimited access to information yet, politically speaking, much of it is meaningless. Voters still know little about their elected officials’ views – especially on the federal level. Meanwhile, candidates have mastered the art of sidestepping questions and dithering on demand.
It is perhaps easier for them. Providing “yes” or “no” answers can be far more costly then providing a cumbersome and incoherent three-minute sound bite. So it has come to this, where the nonpartisan and Montana-based Project Vote Smart is finding it difficult to get politicians to fill out its signature test.
Project Vote Smart is headquartered at a small ranch outside of Philipsburg and has been lauded as one of the country’s preeminent nonprofit resources for voters to find information on those running for state and federal office. Each election cycle, it asks that candidates fill out a “Political Courage Test,” a questionnaire that determines their respective views on a variety of issues, ranging from abortion to taxation.
It’s a simple request. At least it should be. But over the last dozen years, fewer candidates have agreed to provide their most basic political views to a third party.
“The willingness of these candidates to answer our Political Courage Test has dramatically declined,” Carly Griffin, media coordinator at Project Vote Smart, said in an interview last week.
In Nevada, where Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is locked in a tight race with Republican challenger Sharon Angle, both candidates have refused to fill out the survey. The governor’s candidates there have also balked.
In Wyoming, a spokeswoman for gubernatorial candidate Matt Mead said it’s the campaign’s policy not to complete out-of-state surveys. His is not the only unusual excuse. Project Vote Smart has compiled a list. Here’s just a few:
“Our campaign only filled out issue questionnaires if they came with a campaign donation.”
“Our consulting firm is telling our candidates not to respond.”
“Americans aren’t asking for more information from candidates, they’re asking for less. They don’t want to be troubled.”
Actually what’s troubling is that more politicians are loathe to expose their positions. Griffin explains why: “The more information candidates put out there, the more information they have used against them.”
Hiding one’s views has somehow become more advantageous to an elected official than transparency.
Even in Montana, where the organization is located, Project Vote Smart has struggled to get candidates to participate. According to the group, Montana Sens. Jon Tester and Max Baucus and Gov. Brian Schweitzer have previously refused to fill out the Political Courage Test. This year, in the race for Montana’s lone congressional seat incumbent Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg and Libertarian Mike Fellows have participated, while Democrat Dennis McDonald has not.
In 2008, only 41 percent of congressional candidates nationwide filled out the questionnaire, compared to 72 percent in 1996. Project Vote Smart can no longer expect politicians to be forthcoming.
“We encourage candidates to actually give us their answers,” Griffin said. “Then again, if you’re not going to tell the voters where you stand on the major issues we’re going to tell them for you.”
The group has formed a new department dedicated to researching candidate positions. It provides “inferred” answers for them based on their public statements and past voting records. That research is used in the Vote Easy section of the group’s website and, if nonparticipating candidates don’t like their responses, they can ask that they be changed.
“We would always prefer to have their answers,” Griffin said.
But when politicians have little to gain, expect them to stick with their hollow scripts.