Driving Political Opinion

A few weeks ago Marlene Buckley posted a question: who uses the bumper sticker more, Democrats or Republicans? I’ve been keeping watch here in Iowa as we get closer to the 2008 Iowa Caucuses to see if there are visible trends among the many contenders. It appears that more cars are sporting Democrat candidate bumper stickers, at least in the Central Iowa area which often votes more blue than red. It also seems in my neighborhood on the west-side of Des Moines that there are more Democrat candidate yard signs.

Historically, the lower-economic quintiles have supported Democrat candidates and the upper-economic quintiles have supported Republican candidates. A 2005 study by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press provides a breakdown of voting trends by six demographic characteristics. Race is the most influential demographic driving party affiliation followed by gender, church attendance, and income.

Looking at a variety of social and economic influences over the past century, the study found that the “‘Republicans are rich/Democrats are poor’ stereotype is much more true now – at least at the extremes of the income curve – than it was a half century ago.”

If you have less money, you are more likely to drive an older model car than someone who has more money. A few researchers who have done some quantifiable research on the number of cars with bumper stickers have noted that older cars that have less value are more likely to have one or more bumper stickers than newer, more expensive and luxury model cars. And cars with stickers, especially multiple stickers, often support Democrat candidates and causes that would be considered liberal.

I still see an amazing amount of W-04 stickers on cars, and many of these are on SUVs, mini-vans, and sedans, more so than on economy or older model cars. I am going to conduct some field research this week, looking at cars in various locations here in Central Iowa to see what I can learn about bumper stickers on Iowa cars the week before the Iowa Caucuses. I want to look at cars in the parking lots of a few area malls, a few city and suburban churches this weekend, and I will also count bumper stickers in the parking lot at my caucus precinct.

Iowa Public Radio did an interview about the bumper sticker project. It’s been fun to see the media’s interest in the research. Today WOI-TV did an interview which aired during the 6 p.m. news. On the 28th, WOI-Radio has an interview also scheduled. Also, the Bumper-2-Bumper exhibit was transfered to the showroom of Dewey Ford, a metro-area Ford dealership for display through the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. That seems only fitting as both the front and rear bumpers are Ford pick-up bumpers and since the first cars with bumpers were Ford Model As.

The online edition of The Chronicle of Higher Education has posted a blog entry on the bumper sticker project. The Chronicle is the No. 1 source of news, information, and jobs for college and university faculty members, administrators and people in academe. According to their website, The Chronicle’s audited Web-site traffic is routinely more than 12 million pages a month, seen by more than one million unique visitors. Pretty cool!

A study published in 1992 by Charles Case in the Journal of Popular Culture, that calls the bumper sticker “a ubiquitous part of modern mobile American society,” observed that everyone sees “tens of thousands” of these messages annually. With a research team, Case set out to assess what the predominant messages are that people adhere to their cars.

Looking at cars in Riverside, California, the researchers found that 39 percent of the 2,160 cars they observed displayed one or more messages. The most common form was a window decal followed by a personal or “vanity” license plate. The classic bumper sticker came in third. Other forms of personalized car communication included personalized license plate frames and “silly yellow signs” among other things.

The signs were grouped into six categories: ideological/political expression/public service expression, philosophical expressions, commercial products, self-identity expressions, and other. The three leading categories were self-identity stickers (which included group, institutional/sports and school affiliation stickers), commercial stickers (such as radio station bumper stickers), and “other” (such as Garfield and other characters). The category of Ideological/Political bumper stickers ranked fifth.

A study by Drs. Kelli Lammie and Lee Humphreys about how people express their political and social views in a consumerist society had some similar findings. While doctoral candidates at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, Lammie and Humphreys were interested in studying how people express political and social views in our consumer society, and how the bumper sticker is part of that expression. They looked at the types of vehicles that sport bumper stickers, where bumper stickers are predominately placed on cars, and what people think about the bumper stickers they see on cars of other motorists.

Looking at almost 1000 cars in and around Philadelphia and on the New Jersey turnpike in the fall of 2003, the study found that 20 percent of all vehicles had one or more stickers. Ranked on a three point scale of good, moderate and old, the researchers judged that 35 percent of the cars studied were in good condition, 27 percent were in moderate condition, and 36 percent were old or in poor condition. The older the car, the more stickers it typically had, and this finding was statistically significant (p< .001). The most popular category or type of sticker was patriotic or pro-USA sticker. Lammie and Humprheys noted that their study was done post-9/11, a time when patriotic feelings were high because of the attacks on America in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania.

They also found that “affiliation” stickers, such as ones alma mater or the triple-A sticker of the American Automobile Association, were highly common. Philosophical, religious, and advertising stickers were also frequently seen. Bumper stickers for presidential candidates represented only .05 percent of all the stickers they observed. The researchers quoted a man who was with the Howard Dean for President organizing committee saying, “ It doesn’t matter how many stickers you put up, it’s not going to make a difference. We should take all that money from the bumper stickers and put it towards a direct mailing. That’s more effective.”

The real effectiveness of the bumper sticker

In terms of effectiveness, that may not be the purpose of the bumper sticker. The bumper sticker may play less of a role in influencing others about a candidate. The bumper sticker may, instead, be an important symbol of the action or intended action of the person who places the sticker on their car. The sticker is a public announcement to both people who know you and those you don’t know about your intentions to support a candidate in the voting booth. It may also indicate financial support of the candidate’s campaign as well as participation as a field volunteer or community organizer. Putting a bumper sticker on one’s car is an action of concretizing one’s decision to stand up in support of a candidate. It is also a strong statement of one’s engagement in the political process.

Case concluded his research on bumper stickers by stating: “These expressions have some similarity to graffiti in being current, spontaneous expressions of individuals in an environment. Signs displayed from vehicles differ in that they are not anonymous and clandestine like graffiti, but rather are intimately associated with individuals through one of their most important possessions. Thus, for those interested in examining the cultural environment, bumper stickers and car signs offer insights into what is important to “common folks,” For ordinary citizens, car signs and bumper stickers offer at least some opportunity for self-expression and input into an environment otherwise dominated by mass-mediated symbols and ideas.”

_________

Case, C. (1992). Bumper Stickers and car signs ideology and identity. Journal of Popular Culture, 26, 107-119.

Lammie, K. and Humphreys, L. (2004). “No votes for turncoats”: An analysis of bumper stickers at public discourse. Unpublished paper presented at the 2004 annual meeting of the National Communication Association, November 11-14, Chicago, Illinois.

It seems the subject of the campaign bumper sticker is of interest to many as we edge closer to the Iowa Caucus 2008. Some would say that all the campaigning is a lot of BS….that’s bumper stickers of course. Here in Iowa we get a bird’s eye view of each and every candidate — the good the bad and the ugly.

Personality, celebrity and charisma seems to play as big a role in politics as policies, positions, and statesmanship. This upcoming week I am going to be making the rounds to all the campaign headquarters of the candidates to do some polling of my own. I am going to be asking campaign staffers what their opinions are of the bumper sticker as a campaign tool. I want to find out if, from their insiders’ experience, we have segued from bumper stickers on the asphalt highway to other modes of campaigning, such as blogs and networking web sites. Does the bumper sticker still play a role next to these modes of 21st century campaigning, or do they eclipse the bumper sticker’s role and importance? 

Yesterday the C-SPAN bus arrived on campus and parked along side Lake LaVerne. A fellow classmate, Eloisa Perez-Lozano went with me for the scheduled interview. Eloisa is also a graduate student in the Greenlee School of Journalism and she is a staff photographer for the Iowa State Daily. She shoot some photos for me on the bus; it was fun to share this experience with this wonderful young woman and talented photojournalist. C-SPAN set up their camera outside for the interviews. It was cold Iowa afternoon with an ice storm looming (in fact the state was pretty much shut down today!). The interview went well. I shared the research and commented on the pre-caucus activist in the state. As soon as the interview posts to the C-SPAN site, I will link it to the blog. Arrangements are being made to transfer the “Bumper-2-Bumper” sculpture to a metro car dealership until the caucuses. ISU sent out a press release today to the media on the project and I have two more requests for interviews. I think there is interest in the bumper sticker as a tool of political advertising, as an icon of free speech, and as an emblem of the American election process. (Photo by Eloisa Perez-Lozano)

In an article about how soft money is spent and what its impact is on campaigns, Political Science Prof. Ray La Raja of University of Massachusetts in Amherst and Karen Pogoda, an associate with Progressive Strategy Partners in Los Angeles, ask “Does party soft money spending generate any public benefits in elections, beyond its intended support for candidates?”

What they found was that political both political parties use soft money to invest in campaign activities that promote party-building and citizen participation, including telephone calling, direct mail, generating enthusiasm for political campaigns through rallies, yard signs – even bumper stickers!

“Both parties …use most of their soft money to expand party headquarter operations during the campaign. Since 1992, they have more than doubled the amount spent contacting individual voters through various voter identification and get-out-the-vote programs. In the last midterm election, just 16% of soft money went toward issue ads, the same amount that was spent on direct mobilization and grassroots efforts” (p.24-25).

Voter mobilization and grassroots efforts don’t cost as much as television time. “The cost of bumper stickers, or even telephone banks, is considerably less than that of media-purchases in metropolitan markets. At about ten cents per bumper sticker, one million dollars will purchase 10 million bumper stickers. The same amount will provide about forty ads (30 seconds) on network TV in a major media market during prime time” (p.20).

La Raja, R. and Pogoda, K. (July 2000). Soft Money Spending by State Parties: Where does it really go? Institute of Governmental Studies And Citizens Research Foundation (Working Paper).

This morning I was interviewed by Arnie Arneson , talk show host of Chowder in the Morning, a New Hampshire radio program on 1110 WCCM which airs Monday through Friday from 6 to 9 a.m. It was fun to talk about the bumper sticker project, blog and paper I am working on for the advertising effectiveness seminar. Arnie ran for governor in 1992 and had a bumper sticker that read, “Arnie, just call her governor.” 

Arneson believes in the power of the bumper sticker as an advertising tool, though she lost her bid to Steve Merrill, John Sununu’s former Attorney General (she received more votes for Governor than any Democrat in state history up to that time).

It was a quick interview, light, breezy and fun, and to think that this project could generate interest in the “other” first-in-the-nation state. The 2008 New Hampshire Primary will be held Tuesday, January 8, five days after the 2008 Iowa Caucus, which will be conducted on Thursday, January 3.   

Does the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights protect your freedom to put anything you want on a bumper sticker and slap it on your car? For the most part yes, it does, and there are plenty of negative, cruel and hateful bumper stickers of all kinds out there enjoying full freedom of speech protection, including many campaign bumper stickers.

In a flag burning case, United States v. Eichman , 496 U.S. 310 (1990) , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable and the fact that protected speech may be offensive to some does not justify its suppression.” That same protection of speech is extended to expressing one’s self on a lowly bumper sticker as well as the “speech” of symbolic gestures, such as burning the American flag.

In Baker v. Glover , 776 F.Supp. 1511, 19 Media L. Rep. 1984 (M.D. Ala. 1991), a successful challenge under First Amendment to Alabama’s “dirty words” bumper sticker law, Judge Myron H. Thompson ruled, “For those citizens without wealth or power, a bumper sticker may be one of the few means available to convey a message to a public audience.”

In Cunningham v. State, 260 Ga. 827 (1991), the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that a statute banning lewd bumper stickers unconstitutionally restricted a motorist's right to self-expression: “The peace of society is not endangered by the profane or lewd word which is not directed at a particular audience.” The court concluded its ruling by quoting Ben Franklin: “Everything one has a right to do is not best to be done.” Siding with Cunningham, the court relied on Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), which upheld Cohen's right to wear a jacket that contained obscene words.

Despite these court rulings there are still a few states that have statutes which prohibit lewd, obscene and offensive bumper stickers. For example, Tennessee Code Annotated, § 55-8-187 reads: “To avoid distracting other drivers and thereby reduce the likelihood of accidents arising from lack of attention or concentration, the display of obscene or patently offensive bumper stickers, window signs, or other markings on a motor vehicle which are visible to other drivers is prohibited and display of such materials shall subject the owner of the vehicle on which they are displayed, upon conviction, to a fine of not less than two dollars ($2.00) nor more than fifty dollars ($50.00).” 

To some people, a bumper sticker for the “other” candidate might be considered offensive.

What about your employer restricting what is on your bumper? If your employer is the government, you may not have as much protection to express yourself as someone who works in the private sector. The courts have given the government a wide berth to maintain a work environment free of disruptions, which means the government can restrict employees’ freedom of speech on the job to some degree in the interest of efficiency.

In Fire Fighters Association v. Barr, 742 F.Supp. 1182 (DDC 1990), a federal district court in Washington, D.C. ruled in favor of a group of firefighters who had been disciplined for distributing bumper stickers that were derogatory to the fire department. The court found that the fire department’s bumper-sticker policy was unconstitutional. Similarly, a federal district court in Missouri ruled in Goodman v. City of Kansas City, 906 F.Supp. 537 (W.D. Mo. 1995), that a regulation prohibiting employees with cars displaying campaign bumper stickers from parking in lots controlled by the city was unconstitutional, writing, “The right to express oneself about issues and candidates at election time is an essential part of our constitutional democracy.”

Not all government employees have fought city hall and won when disciplined for displaying bumper stickers.

In Connealy v. Walsh, 412 F. Supp. 146 (W.D. Mo. 1976), a federal district court in Missouri denied the First Amendment claim of a social worker disciplined after she refused to remove a George McGovern bumper sticker from her car, writing that “the Juvenile Court could reasonably conclude that any partisan bumper sticker could result in a material and substantial interference with plaintiff’s duties and that a compelling state interest in promoting the effectiveness of Juvenile Service employees and of the Circuit Court justified the prohibition of all partisan political bumper stickers.”

In Ethredge v . Hail , 996 F.2d 1173, 1175 (11th Cir.1993), the federal appeals court affirmed a lower court’s “ruling that an administrative order that bars from Robins Air Force Base ‘bumper stickers or other similar paraphernalia’ that ‘embarrass or disparage’ the President of the United States does not violate the First Amendment.” The court’s ruling took into account that a bumper sticker did not have to be critical of the President to be embarrassing, “Indeed, we can well imagine signs or messages that, although intended to be supportive of the President, may (due to a profane nature, for example) embarrass or disparage the President.” For the very same reasons, bumper stickers displaying the image of the Confederate flag have also been prohibited by military officials.