Politic Poll Results

After conducting a (very non-scientific, by the way) poll, it seems that the majority of our readers feel that political volunteers should have their backgrounds checked, but the volunteers should be asked to pay for the checks themselves.

This makes for an interesting situation. With political volunteers already seemingly unpaid, fronting the cash for a background check may turn away scores of casual volunteers.

On the other hand, most background checking companies will negotiate a discount dependant on volume. When combined, these volunteers number (dependant, of course on the campaign, and the office the candidate is hoping to fill) somewhere in the thousands. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a company that's not willing to offer a discount to an entity that wants to screen thousands of volunteers within the scope of a few months.

Either way, according to the votes, something should be done, (there was only one vote in the "no" column).

Presidential Volunteers not screened

Here's something that's not surprising;
A recent study shows that less than 5% of volunteers for the Presidential Candidates' campaign offices are screened with background checks.

While it's obviously not a priority, and money can be spent elsewhere, it does seem like anyone dealing with a possible future president (yes, one of the candidates will eventually be president) should have at least a once-over on their background before being allowed to volunteer.

What do you think?

Should political volunteers be screened?

Only if they have direct contact with the would-be president Only if they have access to important information yes, always no, never. it's a waste of money Yes, but it should come out of the volunteers' pocket Yes, but the tax payers should pay for it The candidates should be able to conduct them if they want to, but shouldn't be required to

View Results Free Myspace Poll