Tapping into voters' desire to limit spending is critical to winning their support for reform. Although voters favor limits on individual contributions, particularly for wealthy individuals, they are somewhat hesitant to eliminate all substantial contributions. Initially, voters resist the concept of public financing of campaigns, which they assume will take money out of their pockets to pay for campaigns. They show more willingness, however, to accept public financing as a vehicle to limit special interests. Similarly, three-fourths of voters still support the previously mentioned reform package, even when they hear it includes provisions for partial public financing through the public matching of small donor contributions.
Voters also respond more enthusiastically to partial than full public financing of campaigns.
Voters greatly prefer voluntary sources for the funding and want to have the money come from pockets other than their own. In sum, voters are most willing to consider public financing of campaigns when presented as a means of limiting the influence of special interest groups and overall spending, and when not paid for by general tax dollars. A Winning Message. The most popular argument for campaign finance reform, including public financing, is that this represents one of the few serious assaults on special interests and politics as usual. Those voters who decide to support the extension of presidential financing to other campaigns during the survey are particularly responsive to the message that this reform will allow government to focus on the needs of the country at large, not the special interests.