Money as “Corruption” vs Money as “Barrier”

At the heart of public disengagement stands a framing challenge. In “Beyond ‘Bought’” we identified an overriding obstacle in framing the issue. By and large, the frames that dominate public debate are driven by a fundamental, narrowly defined, idea:

POLITICIANS ARE BEING BOUGHT.

The original research reported on here confirms and extends our conclusions about the way this frame limits and constrains people’s thinking on the issue.

The corrupting influence of money in politics, the idea that politicians have been bought, is already cultural common sense. This basic understanding is consistent, durable, broadly shared across the population, and easily accessible. People talk about the problem fluently and in detail. Adding further emphasis to this way of understanding the issue will do little to increase salience or engagement.

Problematically, this way of understanding the issue prevents widespread public engagement in the solution for a number of reasons:

• People believe it isn’t possible to stop money; money will find a way.
• The public asserts that politicians won’t stop the flow of money from which they are presumed to personally benefit.
• The “corrupting influence of money” defines the challenge as fighting against a coalition of wealthy and powerful interests.
• People feel hopeless and powerless in the face of this challenge; reforms seem inadequate
• Cynicism is so deep that people are unsurprised at new examples of corruption and influence, no matter how shocking
• Fantasies of revolution (imagined across the political spectrum) seem – logically – to be the only path forward

The long-term result is that people become angry, pessimistic, and distanced from government, rather than engaged in saving it.

One of the most important priorities for communicators must be to redirect people’s anger away from pessimism and condemnation of government and toward a more optimistic engagement with reform and good governance.

In the course of this research, Topos identified a reframe that engages people in the right solutions, while creating a more optimistic, hopeful view of the government we can and should have:

PEOPLE FACE BARRIERS TO RUNNING

Rather than focus on how money influences decisions, it focuses on how our current system for elections excludes most people from taking part – in particular how barriers – especially lack of money – keep regular people from running and being elected.

In this BARRIERS TO RUNNING frame, the problem of government is not specifically about money, but rather about how government is no longer representative of the diversity of the population at large. The frame is not simply about making sure the interests of regular people are represented by government. It is specifically about how regular people are, in the current system, prevented from running or becoming elected.

While for insiders and experts it doesn’t matter who does the representing, as long as the people’s interests are represented, for ordinary people, it matters a great deal.

They want to see the best possible people in office, no matter their financial circumstances or connections. They want to see more people like them elected to office, and trust them to understand and represent the people’s will. To ensure the best people have an opportunity to run, they are motivated to deal with the barriers that prevent them from being elected, especially money.

The frame shift can be easily demonstrated with two quotes from Senator Bernie Sanders:

The BARRIERS TO RUNNING frame is a very easy model to evoke in people. They feel many elected officials do not represent them or their interests, and they worry that this will not change as long as elections require candidates to raise such vast sums of money – since only people with wealth – or who can connect to people with wealth – are able to get in the game and win elected office. Elections are limited to those with wealth or with connections to wealth, shutting out people who might do a great job for constituents if given the chance. In contrast to the POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT frame, the BARRIERS TO RUNNING frame has a number of positive effects that will move the conversation toward engaging in solutions:

• It positions the policy suite of campaign finance reform as a sensible, pragmatic, and easily understood route to reclaim a government of, by and for the people.
• This frame is not partisan; it’s about enabling “people like me” to get into office. It’s about getting the best possible representation, not the best representation money can buy.
• While it doesn’t do away with thoughts of corruption and shady politicians, it brings to life an alternate view of the well-intentioned government official who seeks to represent his or her constituents, but is hindered by the need to amass campaign contributions, or the dedicated advocate who wants to serve, but is faced with a seemingly insurmountable requirement to raise a huge war chest before being taken seriously.
• By re-casting our current campaign fundraising system as a burden for elected officials, it helps people see how reducing that burden can enable politicians to focus on their constituents even after elections.
• Rather than demonizing all politicians as corrupt (or at best soon to be corrupted), the re-frame helps bring an alternative idea to the forefront – that we should change the way we run and finance campaigns in order get the best possible representation from our elected officials.
• Rather than further distance people from a corrupt government, this frame excites and engages people in the possibility of reclaiming it – including an interest in donating to help good candidates overcome the money barrier.
• Finally, while Trump’s candidacy exploded after our testing was complete, we suspect that his “I can’t be bought” mantra will have less traction if the mindset becomes “money is a barrier that keeps good people from running.”

The report that follows explores these frames and their effects in depth, and provides suggestions for how communicators can shift the debate.

Average Joes can’t get into politics because they can’t afford the cost of running a successful campaign.
(40-year old conservative woman, MO)

TALKBACK TESTING

In the TalkBack method, developed by Topos principals, individual subjects are presented with brief texts (roughly 100 words) and then asked a number of open-ended questions, focusing in part on subjects’ ability to repeat the core of the message, or pass it along to others. TalkBack texts generally focus on conveying a single key concept, such as a particular aspect of money in politics. New terms are often introduced as well (usually identified as terms that “experts” use), in order to test their potential to strengthen communication.

TalkBack testing assesses several key dimensions of a communications approach, including:

• The “stickiness” of particular ideas and terms – How well do subjects remember them? How likely are they to repeat them?
• Effectiveness as an “organizing idea” – How well do subjects stay on topic? Is the new concept shaping thinking in a new way? Clarity – Are subjects able to explain the idea and reason in terms of it?
• Clarity – Are subjects able to explain the idea and reason in terms of it?
• Guides thinking in the right direction – Does the idea guide people towards constructive perspectives and away from counterproductive ones? In particular does it move people toward pessimism or engagement with the problem?

Messages that do well in these ways have the capacity to change minds, engage support, and enter the culture as new “common sense.”

40+ distinct TalkBack paragraphs were tested among 700+ subjects, drawn from around the US.

ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD-TESTING

The defining strength of the anthropological approach is to provide a deeper view into people’s lived experience of the world. The primary tool of anthropology is ethnography – based on engaging with people where they live, work and play, and on their own terms rather than on terms imposed by the researcher. One of the key goals of these semi-structured conversations is to introduce particular ideas and frames and then encourage subjects to think aloud about the topic, rather than reproducing opinions they have stated or heard before.

In practice this entails engaging people in impromptu conversations. To be considered useful, interactions take at least 5 but no more than 40 minutes, depending on how much time and willingness a given subject has to delve into the topics. The conversations are often one on one, but also include three or four way exchanges.

One of the keys to the ethnographic method is to allow patterns to emerge from natural interactions as much as possible. In the brand of ethnographic field testing that Topos undertakes, we decide ahead of time what kinds of topics we would like to cover – what terrain we want to be on, so to speak. We design questions and comments that are structured enough to put us into that terrain, but loose enough to elicit unexpected responses and rejoinders. Researchers are professional anthropologists trained and experienced in the techniques needed to maintain and direct these kinds of semi-structured conversations.

Across 8 days in April and May 2015, ethnographers conducted over 100 of these encounters in Kansas City, Missouri, San Jose, California and Stockton, California. Most were audio- or videotaped for later analysis.

THE CORRUPTING INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN POLITICS IS AN ESTABLISHED PART OF THE CULTURAL COMMON SENSE.

Our research confirms that, in a general sense, the issue that advocates are concerned with is familiar to members of the public – Americans are aware and concerned that money in politics is having a negative impact on our democracy and our society.

According to a widely shared understanding, money has come to play a central role in how government operates and sets its priorities. As a consequence, politicians and their policies too often serve the interests of the wealthy and well-connected instead of serving the interests of regular people.

This understanding is shared by the majority of people we spoke with, cutting across lines of age, ethnicity, geography, socio-economic level, and political orientation. While language and emphases, as well as responses to the problem, can vary across individuals and groups, the basic understanding is consistent, durable, broadly shared, and easily accessible. People talk about the issue fluently and in detail. For this reason we refer to it as being part of Americans’ “cultural common sense.”

THE PUBLIC HAS A CLEAR THEORY OF HOW MONEY IN POLITICS WORKS.

Very often, social science research reveals a wide and important gap between how “average people” understand a given public interest issue, and anything resembling an expert model. Typically there are differences not only in the degree of richness and detail available to experts vs. laypeople, but also in the understanding of what the issue is fundamentally about. For example, when we first started investigating the issue of global warming, we found that many laypeople simply didn’t grasp that global warming is happening because excess carbon dioxide is accumulating in the atmosphere and trapping the sun’s heat. This is a very basic level of understanding that was not accessible to average people, who often had wildly inaccurate theories about what global warming is and/or comes from (sun’s natural cycles, etc.) – and therefore had difficulty engaging with discussions of solutions.

By contrast, the people we talked to in this research have a partial but clearly understood theory of the role of money in politics. They get that wealthy interests contribute money to politicians and that this slants political decision-making in favor of those who give money, and away from ordinary folks.

Experts of course have a much broader model of the role of money in politics, one that includes a broad variety of causal effects and pathways.

People believe that money buys influence and power.

The model average Americans use to understand the issue is POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT. That is, in exchange for money, government officials and politicians agree to serve the narrower interests of their financial backers rather than serve the interests of the people who elected them.

This lay model isn’t just a simplified version of the expert model, of course. For one thing laypeople tend not to euphemize the problem – e.g. by referring to it as “money in politics;” they don’t shy away from the term “corruption” regardless of whether the activities in question are technically legal or not.

There are also differences in details, and in degree of emphasis. For example, laypeople don’t distinguish clearly between money that is going to politicians personally (as outright bribery) and money that is going to their campaigns.

People understand that fundraising and campaign donations are a main conduit for money.

Although Americans are not opposed to fundraising and political donations in principle, they clearly believe that they serve as a primary way through which wealthy donors and special interests corrupt the democratic process.

They see an exclusive club where people enrich one another.

People understand that corruption means more than just cash changing hands. They have a generalized sense that politicians, judges, wealthy donors, corporations, lobbyists and so on exist at another level as a kind of exclusive club – where money, favors and influence are traded and sold in ways that enrich the members of the club, and where regular people have little role or voice.

There are a number of important ways in which the layperson’s model is less complete than the expert model. For example, non-insiders don’t tend to grasp the concept of public matching funds, nor myriad ways in which money can exert indirect influence, for example through the variety of revolving-door mechanisms that allow interested parties to use implicit promises of lucrative jobs down the road to indirectly influence officials’ decision-making.

But the fundamentals of the expert model and lay model are clearly compatible. In addition, many of the people we talked to had a rich grasp of the issue, or at least of some specific aspect of the issue, based on media coverage or conversations with knowledgeable peers. It was not easily predictable who would know what about the broad issue of money in politics.

Additionally, when we gave people information about the extensive reach of money in politics that they might not be familiar with – such as contributions to judges’ elections by interested parties, or the implications of the Citizens United decision – people tended to be appalled but not deeply surprised.

In fact, the POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT model is so deeply established and so negatively charged that essentially no new outrage is capable of changing people’s basic take on the situation. This is a very important consideration given how tempting it is for advocates to believe that “the next scandal” will create a meaningful tipping point.

THE ISSUE DYNAMIC TAKES PLACE IN A REALM OUT OF THE REACH OF REGULAR PEOPLE.

The most striking aspect of the POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT frame is how it entails a combination of great outrage and profound pessimism.

Although people share the expert diagnosis that campaign financing and its accompanying cronyism have corrupted the democratic process, they view this as a problem that is beyond reach of any of the proposed solutions. When the focus is money, government and politicians are seen as nestled together with wealthy and powerful elites in a relationship that excludes regular people, almost as though all dynamics related to money and power were removed to an alternate, unreachable plane, which regular people have no access or connection to.

Familiar solutions such as more active voting, campaign finance reform, holding politicians or donors more accountable, better enforcement of regulations, making political donations oneself, or even getting involved in politics – all seem to fall well short of what is needed to influence a money-driven world that feels increasingly distant and out of touch.

The “Money-in-politics” dynamic happens in a realm that average people have no experience with, and no clear understanding of. The players are by definition more powerful than regular folks, and the whole system is largely beyond our reach.

You can't stop money.

In the POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT model, it makes perfect sense that those wealthy and powerful people who give politicians money will expect and receive benefits in turn – often at the expense of the public good. It also makes sense that they will have ways of disguising corruption and evading detection and regulation. It is, after all, what those involved in corruption normally do.

So when it comes to regulating or limiting how money flows within the distant and self-contained world of political corruption, average citizens see little hope of success. People assume that elites will find ways around any effort to interfere with money and continue the corrupt behaviors.

When directly challenged about whether it is better to give up or try to do something – many people express the idea that some action is better than no action, but their lack of optimism is striking.

In the “elevated” realm where government takes place, and money and favors change hands, regular people feel they have little access and they see no reason why things would change in any substantial way.

Why would bought politicians stop the flow of money?

The POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT frame creates outrage. It strongly implies that a public trust is being broken and that we need better policing or official reform in order to solve the issue. Unfortunately, when the system as a whole is understood in terms of collusion between government officials and wealthy elites, there is little reason to expect the system to police or reform itself.

When Americans think about this issue there is a widespread conviction that politicians are fundamentally unwilling to address the issue. The idea that positive change could occur can even seem to defy common sense.

And even well-intentioned reformers in government are subject to being “bought” or simply marginalized by a corrupt system.

The POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT frame – being about systemic criminality – is powerfully discrediting to the idea of government policies as a way of solving problems.

One of the most important priorities for communicators must be to redirect people’s anger away from pessimism and condemnation of government and toward a more optimistic engagement with reform and good governance.

PEOPLE FEAR THAT AMERICAN DEMOCRACY IS IN DECLINE, OR PERHAPS EVEN GONE.

Money in politics is seen as a profound departure from the principles that define American Democracy, from the ideals we learn in school about how our system of government is supposed to work.

It is not an exaggeration to say that this issue is an existential problem that challenges many people’s sense of who we are and whether American society is likely to continue in recognizable form.

In contrast to many issue areas where advocates’ primary hurdle is to convince people that we have a problem worthy of serious attention – in the case of Money in Politics, people are all too aware of the problem, or at least some of its important aspects and implications. It is the solutions that are difficult for them to see.

THINKING ABOUT SOLUTIONS FOR THE CORRUPTING INFLUENCE OF MONEY CREATES A “PSYCHOLOGICAL QUICKSAND.”

One of the most important areas where the thinking of advocates and laypeople differs is in their psychological reactions to the problem and to proposed solutions.

Ordinary Americans diverge strongly from advocates and experts in feeling, at a visceral level, that the problem of money in politics is largely unsolvable and inevitable. While there are obviously large differences between individuals, nearly everyone believes that money in politics is with us to stay, is getting worse rather than better, and may ultimately prove to be our undoing as a nation.

We can use the metaphor of psychological quicksand to describe the effect that thinking about money in politics has on many people. Our conversations showed a strong pattern of discouragement, negative feelings, and often anger as people discuss the ubiquity of what they see as a profound degree of corruption in the political sphere – resulting in people not engaging seriously and practically with the issue.

Psychological defense mechanisms

Feelings of powerlessness and hopelessness are uncomfortable and unwelcome for most people. When people think about government through the POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT lens, they think about betrayal and about others getting things that were meant to be for them.

Unfortunately, this means that the problem elicits a number of counterproductive responses, which might be thought of as psychological defense mechanisms. People find ways to avoid thoughts about a topic like death, for instance, and the influence of money feels to many like a kind of death spiral.

Avoidance

In our conversations, many people agreed wholeheartedly that the corrupting influence of money in politics is a huge problem in American life, talked a bit about how nothing much could be done about it, scoffed at any proposed solutions and quickly proceeded to change the subject. They did not find discussion of possible solutions particularly engaging.

For this reason, people avoid really engaging with the topic in constructive ways. The POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT frame promotes outrage, which can sometimes overcome people’s avoidance, but for reasons discussed above, it tends to deepen rather than alleviate people’s sense of powerlessness.

Cynicism

People often show a jaded lack of surprise about new information relating to the problem of Money in Politics, no matter how shocking. There seems to be a kind of cultivated cynicism about the whole issue: If we can’t do anything about it, we might as well joke about it.

Particularly unproductive is the tendency for nearly any possible solution to be dismissed out of hand as unlikely to achieve the desired result.

One way for people to deal with anxieties about how we solve this problem is to simply give up and decide that there is no solution.

Radical measures and fantasies of revolution

On both ends of the political spectrum, many express frustration that the only thing that might change things is a citizen uprising. Because none of the normal levers of influence seem to have any effect, people often voice a desire for more radical approaches.

At the same time, this rhetoric seems, for the people we spoke with, to be about letting off steam rather than taking action.

Details of the “radical” solutions might differ based on people’s political leanings, but these visions share the same underlying sense that the entire apple cart needs to be upended, and that what advocates see as more practical solutions can feel like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

It’s important to reiterate that these sentiments are not being expressed by people with any real intention of taking part in an uprising, which is why we describe them as fantasies. They represent a kind of psychological release for frustrations and anxieties that can’t be relieved in real life.

REFORM PROPOSALS DO NOT SEEM ADEQUATE TO THE TASK.

The researchers were struck at how often discussion of concrete policy ideas seems to intensify people’s feelings of disempowerment and negativity (the quicksand effect). Normally, we find that focusing on solutions – especially when the problem is as well-understood as money in politics – can help restore positive energy in support of policy approaches.

In this case, however, the proposed solutions seem to serve mainly to deepen people’s pessimism that nothing is likely to change. Solutions such as donation limits, greater transparency, public matching funds, citizen activism and so on simply seem inadequate to address such profound problems as a corrupted system taken over by the wealthy and powerful, and government as a distant entity in which we have little or no say. Although it is easy to trigger anger and outrage, and elicit support for certain proposals that could inhibit or punish wealthy politicians (e.g. donation limits, greater transparency), people voice little optimism that such reforms will result in substantive change in a deeply corrupt system.

EXAMPLES OF SCANDAL CREATE OUTRAGE, BUT OFTEN END UP PLAYING INTO THE DYNAMIC.

There is no question that the public is still capable of feelings of betrayal and anger when informed about particularly egregious instances of what feels to them like corruption.

The change-potential of this outrage is, however, blunted by the difficulty the public has in imagining an alternative political system – i.e., one in which money can actually be “kept out.” In fact, this hopelessness deepens as people learn more about the rules of the system – exemplified by the Citizens United decision. Every instance of (what seems like) corruption that is not punished serves to reinforce their sense of a game that is rigged and approved at the highest level.

To insiders this frame may not seem like a fundamentally different way of understanding the issue – it’s still about the nefarious effects of money in politics. In fact, the idea of a “money primary” is not new to insiders. To regular people, though, this is a qualitatively different conversation.

In this BARRIERS TO RUNNING frame, the problem of government is not specifically about money, but rather about obstacles to running that keep good people, a diversity of Americans, from running for and winning office. Instead of representing the interests of the population at large, the only ones who can overcome the money barrier are those who end up representing the wealthy interests and backers who have enabled them to get elected and who will enable them to get re-elected.

The problem of Money in Politics is re-framed to focus on how the need for vast sums of campaign money, and other factors, act as barriers that prevent the majority of Americans from being able to participate in elected government and serve as representatives for their communities. In fact, the ability to amass enough money for a campaign has become the defining characteristic of a serious campaign.

The essential points to this “Barriers to Running” story are:

Running for elected office requires personal wealth or support from wealthy and powerful people, which acts as a barrier that prevents regular people from being elected and representing their communities.

This limits our choices to just those candidates who can amass huge sums of money.

To restore a more representative government, and to have the ability to elect the very best representatives, we need to address the barriers that prevent ordinary people from running for office.

The BARRIERS TO RUNNING frame is a very easy model to evoke in people. They already feel their elected officials do not represent them or their interests. It is also easy for them to see that this will not change as long as elections require candidates to raise such vast sums of money – since only people with wealth – or who can connect to people with wealth – are able to get in the game and win elected office. In cognitive terms, it is extremely “easy to think,” as well as being more vivid and compelling than other more abstract metaphors.

It is easy for people to appreciate the connection between these barriers and many of the problems with our government and our democracy that are so troubling to people. As long as regular people are excluded from the process, it seems natural to people that representatives tend strongly to support the interests of the wealthy – whether because they are beholden to their backers or because they are now enmeshed in the upper class themselves.

In order to compete in a modern election a candidate needs money for airtime and publications, for travel and outreach, for staff and equipment and so on. People see vast sums being spent on ubiquitous advertising with the better-funded drowning out the poorly-funded. In short, it is near impossible for someone to get into the game without wealth or access to wealth. It is obvious to people that the end result is a government that looks after the interests of the wealthy and politically influential.

THE SOLUTIONS: LOWERING THE BARRIER

In contrast to the POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT frame, the BARRIERS TO RUNNING frame supports the policy suite of campaign reform in a way that not only makes sense, but offers an appropriate and believable route to change – in particular, reclaiming a government of, by and for the people.

The explicit solution is to enable a wider swath of people to get elected to representative office – and the most obvious way to do this is to both reduce the scale of the money barrier (e.g. with donation limits and spending limits) and to help more candidates cross the barrier by creating supports and routes that enable people to run for office, get their message out, and reach voters (e.g. with public matching funds, equal airtime policies, mandatory debates, etc.).

In effect, the policies shrink down the amount of money that a potential candidate requires and reduce the currently insurmountable advantage that wealth represents. Donation limits and spending caps are attractive to people because they shrink the size of the monetary barrier, while supports like equal airtime and public funding further enable the non-wealthy to get their message across to voters and supporters. This approach focuses on the barriers to election – “making it easier for regular people to be in the game.”

It is important to remember that the BARRIERS TO RUNNING frame creates a general mind-set and way of understanding how the issue works. It does not pre-determine the exact policies that will accomplish the goal of reducing barriers faced by ordinary people who want to run for office. Two important findings emerged from the research on this point:

First, people tended to volunteer a list of policy preferences that overlapped with, but was not identical to, the policy preferences of advocates. This is in part due to the fact that some policy ideas are more conceptually accessible, and in part because laypeople’s thinking is not constrained by considerations about what is politically feasible, or what the Courts have deemed acceptable. So for example, people tended to bring up limiting spending much more often than limiting donations – because it is a more intuitive, direct solution. Similarly, they often brought up the idea of free airtime for candidates, not high on the list of advocate priorities. At the same time, once the re-frame had been evoked, people talked much less about either term limits or revolution – neither of which seem to them to address the issue at hand.

Second, the BARRIERS TO RUNNING frame made the policies that are preferred by advocates – but that were previously unfamiliar to them – much easier to grasp and to accept. For example, the idea of public financing of elections was not often volunteered by participants, was initially rejected or not understood by them, but made sense once the new frame had been evoked.

In general, the BARRIERS TO RUNNING frame sets up the policy suite preferred by advocates, but also allows for additional reforms that may arise in the future.

The following is not intended as a recommendation about policies to advance. Rather, it is intended to demonstrate how the reframe supports a vast array of solutions, from public financing to donation limits.

Limits on Fundraising

One way of reducing the barrier is to limit the amount of money being gathered. People readily recognize the way in which campaign finance reforms could reduce the burden of modern campaigning in ways that enable non-wealthy candidates to compete. In particular, capping campaign donations and putting limits on fundraising.

The most common objection to caps on donations was that politicians might just get around them, which shows how the POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT frame can reassert itself, especially when the solution seems to be about coming between powerful politicians and their donors.

In addition, a significant minority of people understand that Citizens United has limited our ability to regulate donations.

Reducing the scale of the campaign

Even more than donation caps, people gravitated strongly to solutions that reduced the overall scale of campaigning – in particular the idea of spending limits or time limits.

When people were using the POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT frame, they often voice support for such campaign limits, but usually as a way of punishing politicians and trying to constrict the flow of corrupting money. In the BARRIERS TO RUNNING frame subjects dwelt more constructively on the potential to bring a wider variety of candidate into the system.

Public Financing: Giving non-wealthy candidates a hand

In the POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT frame when campaign support policies such as public matching funds were explained to people, they found it absurd that we would give despised politicians help or free money. In the BARRIERS TO RUNNING frame, however, fundraising is framed as a barrier and a burden rather than a source of corruption, and people easily grasp the rationale for making public funds available as a way of ensuring that the best candidates, rather than the wealthiest or best connected can run for election.

In many cases they volunteered additional policy proposals – especially equal time regulations for television and radio and publically supported forums like debates and websites which would allow all candidates to get their messages out – rather than competing expensively for attention on television.

These were some of the most popular and most often spontaneously introduced policy ideas, perhaps because the cost of “getting your message out” was the most familiar campaign expense to people.

In this frame, most of the policies that advocates propose make sense to people as a way to create a pathway for regular people to get their message out, to run campaigns and to begin representing the people of their communities rather than wealthy benefactors and donors.

Non-monetary barriers

Although the daunting expenses of running a campaign were the most top of mind barrier to the election of regular people, the BARRIERS TO RUNNING frame is also relevant to other kinds of barriers to citizen participation, including cronyism, voter suppression and gerrymandering.

This research focused most on campaign finance reform, so more research would be needed, but it seems clear that the BARRIERS TO RUNNING frame has potential to help in other efforts that restore greater democracy to the political system.

THE BARRIERS TO RUNNING FRAME AVOIDS THE PSYCHOLOGICAL QUICKSAND.

The negative emotional reaction that is typical with the POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT frame is replaced by a more engaged, less cynical response. This clear, concrete story is more energizing as people focus on this problem and its potential solutions.

The natural solution is to do what it takes “to put people like me in government.” The question becomes, “What do we do to let people in, and enable them to get past the obstacles?”

The policy suite becomes a sensible and appropriate response to the problem of representation and the way in which the influence of wealth has derailed democracy.

THE EFFECTS – OPTIMISM ABOUT GOVERNMENT

The BARRIERS TO RUNNING frame leads to thinking that is much more compatible than the POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT frame with a belief in effective government. In short, it allows for optimism, whereas a focus on the corrupting influence of money promotes mental quicksand.

It resonates with the American ideal of Democracy – a government of, by and for the people.

The Re-frame jibes with this well-established model of the ideal government – and speaks to the possibility of a return to a more functional democracy.

In contrast to the POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT frame, which intensifies antipathy toward government, the BARRIERS TO RUNNING frame builds on people’s desire to have a functional and representative government, in which citizens have scope for action and some hope for success.

People regard this approach as a way of strengthening the sort of government that we were meant to have.

Rather than demonizing all politicians as corrupt (or at best soon to be corrupted), the re-frame helps bring an alternative idea to the forefront – that we should change the way we run and finance campaigns in order get the best possible representation from our elected officials.

People want better choices. Few are anxious to take to the streets, and most are drawn to the idea that they could vote in people who might respond to their desires rather than those of special (wealthy) interests.

Reform seems more practical and doable.

One sign of a successful frame – or organizing idea – is that it enables people to creatively engage with a topic and generate further ideas and approaches toward a solution – a mode we call “practical problem-solving.”

In contrast to the POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT frame, which inspires anger and cynicism, the idea of a barrier to representation inspires many people to go into a problem-solving mode where they begin to think about ways in which the advantages of money can be reduced or overcome.

In contrast to the POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT model, which encourages either despair or fantasies of insurrection, taking on the money barrier strikes people as a potentially realistic and pragmatic approach to the current crisis.

People believe that electing more representatives from the grass roots will have a positive effect.

REDUCING THE SCALE OF ELECTIONS IS ABOUT ENABLING GOOD GOVERNANCE – EVEN OUTSIDE THE ELECTION PROCESS.

In the POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT frame, curbing the flow of money is viewed as a way of punishing politicians and interfering with influence peddling and graft, and is tightly tied with anti-government feelings. People assume that in spite of reform efforts, corruption continues, perhaps at a somewhat decreased rate. There is little or no structural reform implied, nor redemption for rank and file politicians.

On the other hand, the BARRIERS TO RUNNING re-frame places a focus on the difficulties of mounting a campaign, and so makes amassing a campaign war chest less an exercise in corruption and more an added burden for representatives.

In fact, it is surprising the degree to which people believe that reducing the amount of money needed for election means better governance after the election.

People readily understand that if elected officials were under less pressure to fundraise – not only would they be less beholden to wealthy donors, but they would be able to focus better on “the people’s business” even when not engaged in re-election.

For example, people exposed to a BARRIERS TO RUNNING frame were posed with the following question:

People have been surprised to see a positive side effect when we reduce the role of big money and level the playing field in elections. Namely, elected officials have been able to focus more on their jobs and less on trying to raise money for their next campaign. How significant do you think this is?

Their responses often showed that they could see clear benefits when in the new mindset as opposed to the POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT mindset.

Even among people don’t overcome their antipathy toward politicians the benefits are still clear.

While it is obvious that this re-frame doesn’t do away with thoughts of corruption and shady politicians, it brings to life an alternate view of the government official who seeks to represent their constituents, but is hindered by the need to amass campaign contributions.

THE RE-FRAME APPEALS TO PEOPLE ACROSS THE BOARD – AND PROMOTES DIVERSITY.

An important aspect of the re-frame is that is seen as essentially non-partisan, and appeals to people across boundaries of ethnicity and geography. People are attracted to the idea of being given a wider selection of potential candidates – including ones from diverse backgrounds and social class, in part because they feel such representation would be more responsive to their particular experiences and needs as well as the needs of their community – however defined.

Importantly, this frame is not about picking winners – but getting the best people in. In particular it is not experienced as a progressive or “politically correct” policy, unlike the general strategy of electing officials who “look like America.”

Although liberals and conservatives differ on the details of which of the various approaches are most promising (i.e. many conservatives object to strict limits), the goal of using campaign reform to reclaim representation for regular people has near universal appeal.

The essential ideas underlying the BARRIERS TO RUNNING Frame can be communicated in a variety of ways, for example:

“Running for office has become so expensive that it is nearly impossible for a regular person to get elected. It seems the only people who can run for office are the wealthy or those with connections to the wealthy. As a result, many Americans now feel like they can’t get the kind of representative who would stand up for their interests and points of view. In order to get back to a government “of the people and for the people”, there are efforts around the country to dial back the amount of money elected officials have to pay out of their pockets and raise from donors. Things that are already being done include:

• enforcing an upper limit on campaign donations
• putting limits on spending
• forming a pool of campaign funds / matching funds for candidates who aren’t wealthy or have wealthy connections
• granting equal time on TV / radio
• greater transparency about who donates to whom.”

Note: The reframe does not commit advocates to a single set of policies. It is compatible with a broad set of policies – as long as they effectively lower the barriers that keep ordinary people from running for office.

There are a variety of ways to communicate this essential idea and communicators should feel free to be creative as long as they are true to the core idea. For example, including a reference to American democracy is helpful:

“The Founding Fathers made it clear that in a democracy the government is supposed to be ‘by the people.’ Unfortunately, a number of factors – including how much it costs to run a campaign, special interest lobbying and so on have become an obstacle preventing regular people from running for office and representing us in government. There are a number of simple steps we can take to overcome that obstacle and create a government that is ‘by the people.’”

It can also work with the “Price we Pay” approach which ties campaign financing to consequences for people:

“Most people agree that today's elected leaders don’t really represent regular people but rather the big-moneyed interests who employ thousands of lobbyists and millions of dollars to protect their own agendas. As a result we, the American people, personally suffer the consequences – to our health, our environment, and our opportunities to get ahead. One way to change this is to make it easier for regular people who aren’t rich or well connected to get elected and to serve. Reforms that are already working in some places include...”

Beyond the Core Narrative, there are some points to note about particular words and phrases.

“Regular people”

The division between the elites and everyone else is a top of mind idea for most people, and various terms were equally effective for drawing a distinction between wealthy elites and “the rest of us.” “Regular people” was the most commonly used by research participants themselves, but “common people,” “little guy,” “average American” and so on were interchangeable. Likewise, references to “wealth,” “wealthy interests,” “the 1%,” “billionaires,” and “Big Business” were all used to refer to the minority that is currently seen to dominate politics.

Leveling the playing field

The metaphor that most quickly allows people to grasp the core story of making it easier for non-wealthy candidates to compete for office – a metaphor that people readily introduce themselves – is the idea that we need to “level the playing field.”

This familiar metaphor acknowledges that the problem is one of unfair advantage; it emphasizes that this is not about picking winners – or even working against the wealthy, but rather about giving everyone a fair shot at consideration by voters.

(We recognize that there are potential political/legal implications for this phrase. Our interest is solely in the “fit” between this metaphor and a clear and concrete way of thinking about the issue.)

Although this formulation is problematic for expert discourse, it encapsulates perfectly people’s desire for election reforms – namely that the current system, which seems to grant overwhelming advantages to the wealthy, be re-made into a system wherein the whole gamut of Americans could compete for election to office.

Barriers

The general idea that our current system creates obstacles for regular people is an important part of the story that people express in various ways, including use of the term “barriers.”

The Founders and a government of the people

It is helpful, when telling the Representation story, to include references to the original ideals of representative government, especially Lincoln’s familiar formulation of a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

The POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT frame encapsulates the idea that government is no longer “for the people,” but the BARRIERS TO RUNNING frame taps into people’s understanding and recollection that it is also supposed to be “of and by the people” in some sense.

Sample Paragraph:

“It is nearly impossible for a regular person without money or monied connections to get elected these days. This was not what the founders envisioned when they set up a government by the people, for the people. Fortunately, Americans have had enough and are enacting policies that level the playing field so that a greater variety of representatives can get elected to office, and once there, can remain free from the pressure to serve wealthy interests for their next campaign.”

A FOCUS ON “KEEPING OUT THE MONEY”

One way to frame the policies on advocates’ list is that they are about creating barriers to the influx and influence of money – “stemming the tide” as communicators often say.

On one level, this is a simple matter of common sense, akin to the police department’s advice to keep burglars out of your home by “hardening the target” through various simple precautions.

It is hard for Americans to disagree that there are things we can do that will at least somewhat reduce the role of money in politics – including public financing, spending limits, and greater transparency about donations. And a focus on these ideas is helpful in that it can help create a more concrete, focused conversation where people see HOW a given step can be helpful.

The term “safeguards,” in particular, showed signs of being a memorable, common-sense way of referring to certain steps that can help reduce the flow of money and protect our system of government from undue financial influence.

Sample paragraph:

The founders of our country paid a lot of attention to human nature, and a lot of the Constitution is about safeguards that make sure decisions are made for the right reasons. The biggest safeguard that’s missing today is one that prevents candidates from being strongly influenced by the wealthy donors who finance their campaigns. Around the country, people are starting to demand these safeguards, and it is working. Some states have passed tough laws about disclosing campaign contributions. Others have been moving to election campaigns funded by the public rather than the wealthy. And others have voted for a Constitutional amendment to get money out of politics. Pushing for these kinds of safeguards is the best way to make sure we have government “for the people.”

In combination with an emphasis on the founders’ vision for our country, the “safeguards” idea proved relatively clear and convincing.

Our introduction to Safeguards also included an emphasis on the fact that we are talking about a system which was designed by someone (e.g. the founders or ourselves). This implies it is a system we can also change and reform for the better.

On the other hand, as the last response reflects, discussions about reducing the influence of money in these ways – separate from discussion of the recommended focus on BARRIERS TO RUNNING – is not terribly exciting, and doesn’t effectively offer hope that the problem will be solved.

In the end, in those instances where the “safeguards” approach makes sense, it will be more effective when presented within the more hopeful vision that we can restore true representation.

A FOCUS ON CITIZEN ACTION

The idea that citizen action can re-claim the government “for the people” is appealing to many and is even a go-to point – as in “the only way things will change is if the people do something.” In fact, the BARRIERS TO RUNNING approach often inspires people to want to do something, and feels like citizens taking action to reclaim government.

When a natural extension of the BARRIERS TO RUNNING frame, this rally to act is natural and effective.

However, as a sole or leading idea, a general call to action can easily lead to a focus on unrealistic, extreme ideas about “revolution” etc. – specifically because it is so difficult for people to imagine that the corrupt institutions of government and wealth can be induced to reform themselves.

Furthermore, an emphasis on the people’s responsibility to do something can also lead to further dismissal and pessimism, since people have seen little evidence that their fellow citizens are up to the challenge.

Sample language:

People talk about getting money out of politics, but a better way to look at it is we need to get more people in. The only solution for fixing the flaws in our political system is to get more average citizens involved – voting, staying informed, rallying, speaking up, volunteering in campaigns, and contributing to campaigns. If we don’t get people back into the process, those with money fill the void and get their pet candidates elected who will do their bidding, no matter what is in the public interest.

Response:

Ultimately for this direction to be helpful, it needs to be grounded in the concrete, achievable call to eliminate barriers to running.

THE METAPHOR OF “VOICE”

It is tempting to talk about how money in politics diminishes the “voice of the people,” and to frame policies as allowing the people’s voice to be heard. At some level, of course, the BARRIERS TO RUNNING approach is about giving average people more voice.

The ethnographic research suggested that while people strongly agree that this would be a very good thing – and even like the language – framing the issue as about the voice of the people does not go far enough to fundamentally reframe the issue for them in a way that will last. In particular, it doesn’t draw them definitively out of the “psychological quicksand” described earlier.

This might be because the metaphor of voice and being heard is too-familiar political rhetoric. It is firmly part of the existing common sense, and while it may inspire in the short-term, without a more lasting idea to ground it, can lead eventually to feelings of disempowerment.

On the other hand, the metaphor of voice is likely to be effective when used as a supporting point for BARRIERS TO RUNNING.

A NOTE ON LANGUAGE

Shifting the frame from a conversation about “politicians are being bought” to a conversation about “lowering the barriers to running” is compatible with a wide variety of terms and phrases.

The research suggests that the frame shift itself is so robust that the exact language is not as important as changing the focus of the conversation itself. People get the shift very quickly and tend to fill in their own terms and metaphors, regardless of how the idea is presented.

Founded by veteran communications strategists Axel Aubrun and Joe Grady of Cultural Logic, and Meg Bostrom of Public Knowledge, Topos has as its mission to explore and ultimately transform the landscape of public understanding where public interest issues play out. Our approach is based on the premise that while it is possible to achieve short-term victories on issues through a variety of strategies, real change depends on a fundamental shift in public understanding. Topos was created to bring together the range of expertise needed to understand existing issue dynamics, explore possibilities for creating new issue understanding, develop a proven course of action, and arm advocates with new communications tools to win support. For more information: www.topospartnership.com.