CAMPAIGN ETHICS

A FIELD GUIDE

HANA CALLAGHAN

Director of the Government Ethics Program at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

Copyright © 2018 Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

All rights reserved.

ISBN: 9781794628427

Mothers all want their [children] to grow up to be president, but they don't want them to become politicians in the process!

--JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

INTRODUCTION

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD

CRAFTING ETHICAL CAMPAIGN COMMUNICATIONS

MAKING ETHICAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

RAISING AND SPENDING MONEY THE RIGHT WAY

BUILDING THE ETHICAL CAMPAIGN ORGANIZATION

CONCLUSION

APPENDICES

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics would like to thank the following political and ethics experts who contributed to the content of this guide:

Kirk O. Hanson, Former Executive Director of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

Joe Simitian, Santa Clara County Supervisor

Steve Glazer, California State Assemblyman

Tom Campbell, Former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives

Ann Skeet, Senior Director of Leadership Ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

In addition, we would like to express our gratitude for the generous support of Mike and Mary Ellen Fox and Pitch and Cathie Johnson, without whom this guide would not have been possible.

We would also like to thank the staff and advisers of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics who helped with the production of this guide including:

Don Heider, Executive Director of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

Miriam Schulman, Former Associate Director and Chief Operating Officer of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

Joel Dibble, Senior Director of Communications for the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

Jennifer Dirking, Senior Director of External Relations

Carol Mayer Marshall, Advisor to the Government Ethics Program

INTRODUCTION

Every two years the American politics industry fills the airwaves with the most virulent, scurrilous, wall-to-wall character assassination of nearly every political practitioner in the country - and then declares itself puzzled that America has lost trust in its politicians.

--Charles Krauthammer

Public service is a noble calling. As Benjamin Franklin once said in his Poor Richard’s Almanac, “The noblest question in the world is, what good may I do in it." Most who choose to run for office do so not for personal glory, but rather because they believe that they can help make their community, their state, and their nation a better place.

Although public service is a noble calling, the process of getting there is not always so noble. As we all know, politics can be an ugly, nasty business. Pretty much everyone who runs for public office believes that he or she is ethical, however in the heat of the battle it is easy to have ethical lapses encouraged by such rationalizations as, “If I don’t win, I won’t be able to do all of the good things that I have planned for my community,” or, “That other guy is bad news and if he wins the community will suffer.” In other words, we argue, the ends justify the means.

The problem with this thinking is that how a person campaigns may affect how a person will govern once in office. Public perception of public officials is also impacted because if candidates are deceptive and engage in dirty tricks in order to get elected, why should we believe that their conduct will miraculously change upon taking the oath of office?

Our process for electing public officials is born out of the ethical ideal of creating an informed electorate. Regrettably, irrelevant, misleading, and vitriolic campaign communications leave the voter without any real information about where a candidate stands. Also, when candidates incur secret obligations in exchange for endorsements, voters don’t know to whom the candidate is beholden. In addition, the amount of money being contributed to, or on behalf of, political campaigns has never been greater, leaving voters to believe that their vote no longer matters and only the rich have a voice.

Many citizens are also frustrated by political polarity and resultant lack of legislative productivity. The public perceives that negotiation and compromise are no longer available tools for those who govern due to obligations created during the campaign process. Moreover, unethical political attacks freely dispensed during a campaign can poison later legislative relationships.

Statistics for voter turn-out and public trust in government are at historic lows. According to the United States Election Project, only 54.7 percent of the voting age population turned out to vote for president in 2016—the last presidential election before the writing of this guide.¹ According to the Pew Research Center, the United States trails most developed democracies in going to the polls. The U.S. places 26 out of 32 in voting among the members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.²

At the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics we believe that one of the reasons for this civic disengagement is that our political process turns a blind eye toward unethical campaign practices. We believe that encouraging ethical campaigns will have three important benefits:

It will help decrease political polarity by reducing the rancor in political races.

It will help restore public trust in government by ensuring fairness and integrity in campaigns.

It will help increase civic engagement by creating a process that not only encourages an informed and involved electorate but also encourages good people to run for office.

Not only are ethical campaign practices good for our democracy, engaging in such practices can yield positive results for your campaign. Research conducted by the Center for Campaign Leadership at the University of California Berkeley and the Institute for Global Ethics shows that voters want to vote for the candidate that takes the high road--the one who tells the truth, is forthright about where he or she stands on issues, is independent, and doesn’t engage in dirty, attack-style politics.³

This guidebook does not cover the legal rules and regulations covering campaign conduct. It is important that you retain legal counsel to advise your campaign on compliance with the campaign laws in your jurisdiction. Adherence to these laws is necessary to a good campaign, but compliance with laws is not sufficient for an ethically sound campaign. Laws provide the floor, not the ceiling of ethical behavior.

The focus of this guidebook is how an ethical campaign should be run to maintain the integrity of the system and the trust of the people in those who would govern. The book will cover the primary areas in which your campaign will likely have to make ethical choices. It is inevitable in any political campaign that unavoidable ethical dilemmas will arise. Not only will your campaign be faced with clear right and wrong choices, but you will also face areas where you will have to find the least harmful course of action among bad choices. An un-exhaustive list of possible dilemmas is included in the appendices of this guide. The guide will also provide nuts and bolts advice on how to create an ethical campaign organization.

Each chapter will include “side bars” from political experts providing real life examples of ethical challenges they have experienced, practical tips, and a case study to prompt thoughtful reflection on how an ethical candidate would respond to the facts of the case. This book is called a field guide because it is designed to be a ready reference for when you confront the inevitable ethical dilemmas on the campaign trail.    

CHAPTER 1

TAKING THE HIGH ROAD

The hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning.

--Adlai Stevenson

That lowdown scoundrel deserves to be kicked to death by a jackass—and I'm just the one to do it!

--Unknown Texan congressional candidate

TEN TIPS FOR ETHICAL POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT

Don’t attack your opponent personally; instead draw contrasts with his or her ideas and policies.

Strive to minimize rancor and keep your message on the issues.

If you get hit, resist the urge to retaliate harder.

When given the opportunity by the press to attack your opponent, deflect and turn the discussion back to your positions and the issues in the race.

Consider fairness in the timing of your political communications and allow your opponent time to respond.

Don’t condone whisper campaigns designed to dry up an opponent’s fundraising and erode support. If you have something to say, say it publicly so your opponent can respond.

Don’t retain all available political consultants so your opponent is unable to obtain professional assistance.

Make it clear to staff and volunteers that you will not tolerate destruction of your opponent’s signs or campaign materials.

Immediately renounce unethical attacks sponsored by others on your behalf.

Prohibit any interference with the voting process.

The 2016 presidential race was seen by many of us as one of the dirtiest in American history. The chair of the DNC (a CNN contributor) leaked primary debate questions to Hillary Clinton prior to the CNN sponsored event.⁴ Clinton called Donald Trump supporters, “Deplorables.”⁵ Trump accused Ted Cruz’s father of participating in the assassination of President Kennedy.⁶ Clinton supporters were fraudulently informed that they didn’t have to go to the polls- that they could vote by text instead.⁷ Cruz sent out deceptive official looking voter “report cards” intimidating voters into casting a ballot for him.⁸ Marco Rubio taunted Trump with having “small hands.”⁹ DNC operatives were accused of starting fights at GOP rallies.¹⁰ An independent expenditure committee posted nude photos of Melania Trump.¹¹ WikiLeaks hacked and released DNC emails and Russia meddled in our election by, among other things, producing a flood of fraudulent news stories on social media.¹²

Dirty tricks in politics are nothing new. John Adams once feared that the Continental Congress would be ruled "by noise, not sense; by meanness, not greatness; by ignorance, not learning; by contracted hearts, not large souls."¹³ Thomas Jefferson supporters were told that they couldn’t vote for Jefferson because he had died.¹⁴ Teddy Roosevelt called candidate William Howard Taft, “a fathead” with, “the brains of a guinea pig.” ¹⁵

But aside from its inherent ugliness, dirty campaigning makes governing much harder. As noted by CNN contributor Bob Greene in 2012, and has been demonstrated time and again post 2016, the problem with scorched earth politics is that it is difficult to shift from mud wrestler to statesman once the votes have been counted.¹⁶ We are also seeing an increase in polarity in the governing process—a direct result of the incivility born during nasty campaign battles. Legislative relationships poisoned during a campaign are hard to mend and make it difficult for later negotiation and compromise. More than three-quarters of Americans (77 percent) have said that the way politics works in Washington causes serious harm to the United States.¹⁷

Even though negative campaigning and dirty tricks get wide coverage in the press, there are stories of ethical candidates whose conduct can provide good examples and inspirations for your candidacy.

In 1964, three weeks before the election, President Lyndon Johnson's aide (a married man) was arrested on a “morals charge” for having sex with another man in a YMCA changing room. Barry Goldwater's campaign staff urged the Republican presidential candidate to make an issue out of the arrest in the campaign. Goldwater refused. He was adamant that it wasn’t relevant to the race, and he didn’t want to participate in the character assassination of the Johnson staffer.¹⁸

In 2000, former congressman Tom Downey, the debate coach for Democratic nominee Al Gore, received in the mail a video of rival candidate George W. Bush's debate prep along with briefing materials. When Downey realized this material belonged to the Bush campaign, he turned it over to the FBI. Although he had only glanced at the materials briefly to determine their contents, he stepped down from the debate prep team, “in order to ensure the integrity of the debate process.”¹⁹

In 2008 presidential candidate John McCain famously corrected a supporter at a town hall meeting who said that she couldn’t trust candidate Barack Obama because he was, “an Arab.” McCain replied, “No, ma’am. He’s a decent family man and citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is all about.”²⁰

And who can forget Ronald Reagan’s brilliant comeback to comments about his advanced age during a 1984 debate with Walter Mondale. With a shrug and a smile Reagan said, “I want you to know that I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” Instead of attacking in kind, Reagan’s ability to deflect earned him the reputation of being a likeable guy—and helped him win a second term.²¹

Michelle Obama’s 2016 rallying cry to the Democratic Convention, “When they go low, we go high,”²² should be the guiding mantra for all ethical candidates, regardless of party. In the heat of the political battle, you and your campaign will be tempted to go low and engage in tactics that undermine our political process and reduce trust in candidates and in government. If you are aware of these questionable practices ahead of time, you can prepare yourself to resist those temptations.

For example, be wary when advised to hold off releasing a negative message until right after the ballots have been mailed. The infamous “October surprise” is the generic term for a negative attack coming out shortly before an election, giving the target of the attack little or no time to respond. If the attack is subject to denial or rational explanation, the interests of an informed electorate require that assertions be timed in such a way as to allow response. Voters should be able to make decisions based on all of the information available, not just that provided by one side.

Whisper campaigns are another unfair tactic whereby rumors, innuendo, and slanderous statements are quietly conveyed in order to damage reputations and/or dry up funding sources and support. The negative assertions are not made publicly, thus the subject may have no idea about what is being said until it is too late. Also because the allegations are not made publicly, the target is caught in a catch-22—if the candidate publicly denounces the rumors, it calls attention to the issue. If the candidate ignores the behind-the-back rumors, the campaign can be damaged. It is a tough position to be in.

Push polling is an unfair and unethical political device used to communicate negative messages. A push poll is one where, under the guise of conducting a legitimate poll, defamatory or otherwise negative and usually false information is conveyed. The American Association of Political Consultants condemns this practice, declaring on their website, “’Push-polls’ violate the AAPC’s stricture against ‘any activity which would corrupt or degrade the practice of political campaigning.’ To the extent that practitioners of the ‘push-poll’ ruse convey inaccurate information about an election opponent, they also violate the AAPC’s stricture against false and misleading attacks.”²³

Practices that hamper your opponent’s ability to fairly compete are unethical. For example if you are a wealthy candidate, think twice before hiring political consultants, not for their services, but to keep them from working for your opponent. Insisting on conducting debates at a time when you know your opponent is unavailable falls into this category. Never turn a blind eye when your staff or volunteers remove your opponent’s posters, or destroy his or her other campaign materials, or in any way stifle the dissemination of your opponent’s message. While it may be easy to shrug this conduct off as “youthful shenanigans,” in reality it is the suppression of political speech by your campaign. Remember, to the voting public, if you say nothing you stand for what you condone.

Any campaign practice that provides an obstacle to a citizen’s ability to vote interferes with our democratic notions of fair and free elections. Such practices are not only unethical but are in many instances illegal. Destruction of mail-in ballots, deliberately staged traffic jams on election day, and voter intimidation at the polls are all examples of unethical—and illegal—tactics designed to discourage voting. On the flip side, it is also unethical and illegal to incentivize voter turnout for a particular candidate by offering a reward or free gifts for voting. Voting is a privilege freely exercised and cannot be bought.

So, how can you show respect for your opponent and the process and still run an effective campaign? By following the ethical rules of engagement laid out in the beginning of this chapter, you will operate under the golden rule in politics—treat your opponent the way you would wish to be treated and our political process will be better for it

Comments by Markkula Center for Applied Ethics Former Executive Director Kirk O. Hanson

Ethics is really about your behavior in everyday life, and it's an applied subject. It’s concerned with three things: First, do you play by the rules? Our behavior should be guided by the rules and by accepted principles like fairness. Second, is the behavior in service of the common good? In an election, are you benefiting the quality of campaigns and the ability of the public to make decisions? And third, are you considering the impact that your behavior has on others? You clearly want to have maximum positive benefit for others in everything that you do; you want to do no unnecessary harm and do what good you can in all of the behavior that you engage in. Applying each of those to a campaign, the first question is, are you playing by the regulations and laws that govern campaigns?

A candidate should play by those rules straight down the middle as opposed to trying to stretch them or trying to find some excuse why the rule doesn't apply in this circumstance. Basic principles fall into this category as well, like truthfulness and concern for accuracy in what you do and say.

The second concern is for the common good.

An ethical campaign is one that serves the public's ability to know what your positions are as candidate and then to make a decision based on their values. The common good is served by a well-informed electorate and good, clean campaigns.

The third concern is that of not doing unnecessary damage to another. There's clearly a lot of give and take in campaigns, and you make statements about the opponent.

But the ethical candidate only makes charges which are somehow relevant to the campaign and to the other’s capacity to serve. He or she considers others and doesn’t drag an opponent’s family or friends into the campaign unnecessarily in a way that does damage to them.

How does a candidate adhere to these principles in the heat of the political battle? Maintaining an ethical stance in the face of pressure is not just a dilemma for political candidates. In every aspect of life, there are pressures that cause you to sometimes act unethically. In business, the pressure of profit, the desire to get the highest salary, may cause you to knife one of your co-workers in the back.

In sports, the temptation to cheat, to be a Lance Armstrong, to have a corked bat is very strong. The challenge is how to manage those pressures. The best way is to know about them in advance and then to prepare yourself to make good ethical choices.

Some fear that being ethical will make them uncompetitive, but that is a short-sighted concern. In the short term, you can put out a very aggressive and untrue accusation about your opponent, and his or her polling numbers will dip for a few days, and yours will likely increase. But the press will eventually find out, the public will eventually find out about your duplicity, and then it will start to damage you. So unethical behavior will come back to haunt you.

In the last five days of a close campaign you might say, “Wait a minute, we are only a few points down and the end of the race is near—all bets are off. We need to do what it takes to win.” In reality, you might get through that campaign, but you're much less likely to get through the next one. Dirt, you know, adheres to you. Once you've shown the public that you don't mind using untruths and engaging in dirty campaigns, that reputation will stick with you in the next election and will hurt your prospects.

In the long term, the individual—particularly the person who seeks a long career in politics—is well served by running an ethical campaign.

CASE

Election Day is in two weeks. You are polling dead even with your opponent. A generous campaign donor, discouraged by your polling numbers, approaches you with information that your opponent has a rocky marriage because his wife allegedly caught him cheating. The donor insists that the information was received from a trusted source and strongly encourages you to take the news to the press. Your opponent is running on a “family values platform.” Ballots have already been mailed and early voting has begun. There is no time to vet the information. Not wanting to offend your donor and desperate to improve your standing in the polls, you direct your campaign manager to go to the press with the information.

Is your conduct ethical? Why or Why not?

CHAPTER 2

CRAFTING ETHICAL CAMPAIGN COMMUNICATIONS

When one with honeyed words but evil mind
persuades the mob, great woes befall the state. 

 --Euripides, “Orestes”

Campaign ads are the backbone of American democracy—if American democracy suffered a gigantic spinal injury.

--John Oliver

TEN TIPS FOR ETHICAL CAMPAIGN COMMUNICATIONS

Tell the truth.

Vet your facts.

Document your findings.

Make sure your communications are fair in addition to being truthful.

Only discuss topics relevant to the issues in the race.

Help inform the electorate by developing substantive policy positions.

Create an informative website.

Engage with voters.

Be available to the press.

Be willing to debate.

Ethical campaigns are those that serve to create an informed electorate. It follows, then, that ethical campaign communications are those that are designed to inform voters about matters pertinent to their voting decision. It’s the campaign’s task to introduce the candidate and educate the voters about the candidate’s background, his or her positions on the issues, and how the candidate is different from the opponent. Even negative messaging about an opponent is ethical so long as the negative information is necessary for the voters to make an informed decision.

Accordingly, responsible communications are those that convey truthful information about you, about your opponent, and about the issues in the race. Ethical messaging also requires that the information being conveyed is fair and that it is relevant to the contest. Finally, in order to inform, you must let voters know where you stand. Ethical campaigns have substantive policy positions to back up soundbites made on the campaign trail.

Truthfulness

Deceptive messaging violates your duty to inform the voter about who you are, what you stand for, and how your positions differ from that of your opponent. Telling lies to your future constituents will also serve to reduce trust in you both as a candidate and as a public official once elected. Political lying also diminishes public trust in government in general.

Cornell Ethics Professor Dana Radcliff has identified why truth matters: He says, “From a moral point of view, what's wrong with deception is that it is a betrayal of trust. You cannot deceive someone unless they trust you, believing that you're being truthful with them. When you succeed in deceiving them, you exploit that trust, using that person for your own ends. In every domain of life, such betrayals weaken or destroy the trust relationships essential to our vital institutions, including (among others) marriage and family, business, education, and representative government.”²⁴

Deceptive practices will harm your candidacy. In this day of fact checking organizations and internet research providing ready access to the truth, deceptive communications are quickly and loudly denounced. Ace Smith, a long time California political consultant said in a 2015 talk at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco that the chance of a campaign being outed as deceptive by social media and watch dog groups has resulted in more truthful campaigns.²⁵ For the good of your campaign, you want to be counted in that number.

Should you get elected in spite of employing deceptive practices, your reputation will be damaged once your duplicity is revealed. If a large portion of the population thinks you are a liar, you will have a hard time convincing your constituents of the sincerity of your policy objectives. Likewise, your fellow office holders will be loath to trust you, hampering your ability to make progress. Finally, a political career based on a damaged reputation will undoubtedly be short lived.

In order to run an ethical campaign, you must be vigilant that all communications by you and those authorized by you are free of deception. Best practices require that your campaign fact check all assertions that will be made by you, and that you keep on file records of your research and all documentary evidence that backs up your assertions.

Often, however, with the advent of ever more powerful independent expenditure committees, a message going out to voters might not be initiated by your campaign, but rather by an outside group. What can you do in a situation where an outside group produces an unethical communication on your behalf?

Independent expenditure committees (known as I.E.s) are outside groups that support your candidacy and create campaign ads either supporting you or attacking your opponent. You do not have any control over the messaging by independent groups. In fact, it’s against the law for you to coordinate with them. What you can do is at the very outset of your campaign announce your commitment to truthful and substantive advertising. If an I.E. issues a communication that does not comport with your standards, it’s imperative that you immediately and publicly disavow the ad. Announce that you don’t approve of the message and that you disagree with the deceptive nature of its contents.

Fairness

Going into a campaign, most people have a moral understanding that it is wrong to outright lie. The problem is, most candidates don’t anticipate the ethical choices they will have to make about communications once the campaign is in full swing. Most campaign communications have at least a kernel of truth, but in the heat of the battle sometimes that kernel is wrapped in deception. Ethical candidates should be wary whenever they are asked to approve a communication that, while true on its face, creates an unfair inference. The following are examples of common tactics to watch out for:

Facts Out of Context: The most common way in which campaigns stretch the truth is to take true facts out of context. The prime example of this is citing an opponent’s roll call vote without the full history behind the vote. A legislator may have a record of voting a certain way on a certain policy. However at some point he or she may have cast a vote that in a vacuum looks contrary to that policy. This vote may have occurred because the legislator did not believe that the bill went far enough to achieve the policy. Or, a legislator may have to compromise his or her stance on a particular policy in order to pass a larger comprehensive bill on an essential funding matter. Regardless of the reason, the legislator’s opponent jumps on this isolated vote to proclaim that the legislator is against a prime policy of issue in the race. In all of these situations what the opponent claimed was true—the candidate did vote a certain way on a certain date—however the inference that the vote is reflective of the candidate’s record on the issue is deceptive.

Statements Out of Context: Votes are not the only thing taken out of context. Often you will see ads quoting the opponent in a negative fashion. While it may be true that the candidate did say the words, the context of the quote may not justify the inference that that the candidate is making about the opponent.

Deceptive Imagery: Visual imagery may also contribute to the deceptive nature of a communication. Even though the words are true, images are manipulated to falsely infer something negative about an opponent or something positive about the candidate. For example you may have seen unrelated pictures in an ad abutted together to falsely infer a relationship between the two. This is called deceptive framing. Using this tactic, political ads often wrongly infer guilt by association when a candidate’s picture is juxtaposed with the picture of someone presumably despised by the voters. The conclusion being prompted is that the opponent and the other pictured individual are ideologically aligned.

Photographic Alterations: Photo editing can be another way that political consultants might blatantly manipulate images in a deceptive manner. For example, the candidate’s image might be photo shopped into a picture with a highly respected person, thereby implying an endorsement when none has actually been given.

Visual Vilification: A regrettably favored tactic in a campaign is where a grossly unflattering photograph of an opponent is selected to underscore an attack and put the opponent in a bad light. You may ask why this is unethical. The answer is that a candidate’s appearance has nothing to do with the issues of the race. By using unflattering photographs the candidate is resorting to appealing to unconscious voter bias instead of informing the voters about the issues.

Native Political Advertising: “Native advertising” is defined by the Native Advertising Institute as, “paid advertising where the ad matches the form, feel and function of the content of the media on which it appears.”²⁶ For example, a campaign might create a video that mimics the look of a television anchor delivering what appears to be a genuine news story. In other cases, campaigns have created “news” websites purporting to be an actual news outlet but with only sponsored content. The problem with these news-like videos, websites, and articles is that, unlike legitimate news stories, there is no independent investigation, no vetting of sources, no editors, and no unbiased reporting.  By trying to pass these stories off as authentic news rather than political advertising, these campaigns are attempting to manufacture credibility. In other words, the pure intent of what is known as native political advertising is to deceive the voters about the origin of the piece.

This type of advertising is not illegal, so long as the videos or articles are marked as paid for by the specific political committee. But, as is often the case, the disclaimer is difficult to find. It is also a problem when the content, once read, gets shared over and over on social media as legitimate news. Just because something is legal, does not necessarily make it ethical.  Attempting to deceive voters is always unethical regardless of the legality.

Relevance

Since ethical communications must serve to inform the electorate, it only follows that communications that are irrelevant to the issues facing the voters are inappropriate. We have all seen attack ads that talk about a candidate’s youthful indiscretions, private marital troubles, or problematic behavior on the part of a candidate’s family member or associate. The question of whether these types of attacks are relevant to the issues in the campaign is a tricky one. For example, we may not care if a politician is having an extramarital affair because it has arguably nothing to do with her capability to govern. However, if that same candidate is running on a family values platform, the issue of her fidelity might suddenly become relevant because the candidate is not being honest with the voters about her true stance on morality.

As another example, the fact that a known associate of a candidate has been indicted might be unethically used to imply that the candidate is guilty of wrong doing as well. Unless there is some direct, relevant connection between the associate’s wrongdoing, the candidate, and the issues in the race, the topic is irrelevant and therefore inappropriate.

The motivation behind these negative attacks is germane to whether the attacks are ethical. You as a candidate must ask yourself, Are the spots designed purely to appeal to voters' inherent bias or is the content in the ad pertinent to a legitimate interest in the race. L. Sandy Maisel in the essay Candidates: Promises and Persuasion advises candidates to ask themselves:

Why am I doing this?

Does the importance of the issue overweigh the costs I am inflicting on another person and family?

Does this issue really define the difference between me and my opponent on a criterion that the public should be using to judge us?²⁷

Maisel also proposes that candidates should consider the impact that negative attack ads have on democracy. Studies have shown that negative attacks not only have the intended effect of lowering trust in the target of the attack, but also have the consequence of lowering trust in the attacker. Maisel concludes, the overall result is increased public disapproval of politicians as a group and of the political process in general.²⁸

Substance

There has been a troubling trend in recent years where candidates are being advised to provide as little information as possible regarding their policy solutions. The purported idea is to allow the candidate’s positions to evolve during the course of the campaign which is hampered if the positions are “engraved in stone.” The actual reason for being less than forthright about positions is to avoid creating a record of ideas with which the electorate can find fault. In other words, these candidates are being advised not to give their opponents ammunition they can use in an attack or a reason for voters to say no.

Failure to disclose positions, however, is the antithesis to the ideal of creating an informed electorate. Above all else, campaigns should be about the clash of ideas not a battle of personalities. The ethical campaign has written position statements presented in substance, not soundbites, on the campaign website. The ethical candidate responds in detail to interviewers and doesn’t dodge debate questions. Many ethical candidates engage with their voters in town hall campaign events, taking questions from the audience. They also create blog posts communicating directly to the voters about their ideas.

Develop your arguments and have the strength of your convictions. Voters may not agree with you on all of your positions, but on balance they can make an informed decision about how you will perform in office. You also avoid the adverse consequences of a shallow campaign—which is that voters refuse to vote for you because they don’t know where you truly stand on the issues.

Comments by Santa Clara County Supervisor and Former California State Senator Joe Simitian

Every time we are getting ready to send out a piece of mail or put a piece of content up on the television or on the radio, we ask three questions. It's a 1-2-3. The first question is, is it true? If it's not true, don’t say it. The second question is, is it fair? Sometimes frankly something may be technically true, but not altogether fair. And the third question is, is it relevant? It may be true and it may be fair, but is it really relevant to the race you’re running? If you can't answer yes to all three of those questions, then you really ought to have second thoughts about that message.

As an easy example, suppose someone has been picked up for drunk driving. So is it true? Well okay it's true; they were arrested for drunk driving. Is it fair?

Well, maybe not if it turns out that the breathalyzer was broken. So it may have been true, but not fair. All right, it's true and it's fair, they were arrested for drunk driving, and the breathalyzer is working perfectly fine, and then you have to ask yourself, is it relevant to the campaign? Each campaign and each individual candidate will come to their own conclusion about relevance.

However, if you put the proposed communication through those three questions— is it true, is it fair and is it relevant—then you'll have a pretty good judgment for the most part about whether or not it's appropriate content.

In determining whether a campaign tactic crosses a line, you have to ask yourself a fairly basic question, how would I feel if this tactic were used on me?

That will generate some interesting conversation. The other question that you ought to ask is, do I have people in my campaign circle who are going to help me exercise good judgment? Whenever I've got a campaign committee or kitchen cabinet— whatever you want to call it —I always like to make sure that I have at least one or two people who are the DNP: the “Designated Normal Person.” The Designated Normal Person is someone from outside the day-to-day workings of politics who may even say, “You know, really, you don't want to include me. I don't know that much about politics.” That's exactly the person you want to ask to be your DNP.

Finally, what should you do if your opponent crosses the ethical line? You have to be ready to respond. Thinking you can just sit back and let it wash over you is a mistake.

But in general the response should be rebut and pivot. By rebut I mean correct the information as quickly and effectively as you can. By pivot I mean change the conversation—do not dwell on the misrepresentations that your opponent has put out there in the arena. If your opponent is trying to get folks to think of you in a bad way, belaboring that conversation is probably not the right way to respond. So rebut, be fact-based, and then pivot. Change the conversation to a different topic, either about some good work you've done or, if there's a legitimate critique of your opponent that meets that three-part test, have that conversation if you need to. You can't just sit back and hope for the best. You've got to play an active role in your own defense.

CASE

During a primary campaign for the state Senate, you send out a glossy campaign brochure featuring a photograph of you sitting at a desk with the seal of the state hanging on the wall behind you. There is a credenza behind you that contains what look to be family portraits. It is a beautiful shot conveying competence and authority. You look like the officeholder that you wish to become.

When the brochure is received by the public, some individuals notice that the photographs on the credenza are actually those of the governor's family. This revelation leads to speculation as to whether the governor let you use his office for a political photo shoot in violation of state law and whether he was implicitly endorsing you. Your opponent has the photograph analyzed and asserts that the picture was digitally altered by superimposing a picture of you over a photo of the governor.

In your defense you claim that you don’t remember when the photograph was taken, but that you had been in the Governor's office many times as a citizen volunteer. You say that the photo must have been taken on one of those occasions. You disavow any knowledge that the picture was digitally altered, saying that the brochure was created by your political consultant. You say that if it was altered, it was done without your consent. You assert that this issue is just a smokescreen by your opponent to divert attention from the real issues facing the state.

What are the ethical dilemmas presented by this case?

CHAPTER 3

MAKING ETHICAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Tell the truth and you won't have so much to remember.

 --Abraham Lincoln

Are you a politician or does lying just run in your family? 

--Fannie Flagg, “Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe”

FIVE TIPS FOR MAKING ETHICAL POLICICAL COMMITMENTS

Promises should be made with the good-faith intent to fulfill them.

Promises should be realistic.

Fulfilling a promise should be within the jurisdiction of the office you are seeking.

Promises should not differ depending upon the recipient of the promise.

Promises should be transparent so the voters know to whom and to what you are committed.

Ethical campaign promises should be realistic, clearly articulated, made with the intent to fulfill the promise, and capable of being accomplished. Don’t make promises about something you don’t have the power or authority to achieve. For example, a state legislator has limited authority in an area preempted by the federal government and therefore can’t make a promise to do something that is solely within the jurisdiction of Congress. As another example, a person in an executive position cannot promise to bring about by him or herself a result that can only be achieved through legislation. Also remember that overpromising, and not delivering, can result in an end of your political career. Who can forget how President George H. W. Bush lost reelection when he broke his promise of, “No new taxes.”²⁹

Ethical campaign promises should also be consistent. Candidates who promise one group one thing and another group the total opposite lose all credibility and demonstrate lack of integrity. Not only is it unethical—it will be bad for your campaign. In the days before the internet, social media, and the 24-hour news cycle, politicians may have been more able to get away with being “flexible” in their commitments. Today a politician who makes inconsistent promises will most likely find him or herself explaining on the nightly news.

Where your campaign might be tempted to make inconsistent promises is when seeking endorsements from various interest groups. A current standard practice is for interest groups to require candidates to answer questionnaires prior to endorsing. In concept this is perfectly reasonable as groups want to ensure that your interests are aligned with theirs prior to giving their support. However, often candidate responses to questionnaires are kept confidential allegedly to allow the candidate to feel more comfortable answering. When a campaign really needs an endorsement, secret responses provide the temptation to answer one way for one group of endorsers and entirely differently for another group. If staff is charged with responding, it is helpful to have the same person take on this task so there are no accidental inconsistencies. Make sure that all responses are also consistent with the candidate’s position and philosophies.

Another problem with confidential questionnaire responses is that candidates are in essence creating secret obligations on matters about which voters have a right to know. Consider publishing all of your responses on your campaign web site. If an endorsing group does not want their questions and your responses to be made known, question the endorser’s motives. Are they creating an obligation that they know voters won’t like but that can be used to put pressure on you once you are in office? That kind of endorsement will certainly prove more trouble down the road than it is worth.

Comments from California State Senator Steve Glazer

We're very used to having elections where candidates are asked questions and their answers are public. It's common in our democracy to have public forums and public debates, and it’s also common to have questions published in the newspaper with the answers from all the candidates that are running for office. That’s a healthy, good part of our democracy, and it’s certainly very transparent for all to see.

But things have changed over the last few decades, where a lot of the questions that are being asked aren’t being answered for everybody to see and hear. They’re being put out by interest groups, who want candidates to answer very specific questions, and to do so in a private forum in a private setting.

These candidate questionnaires are from groups that you are very familiar with: the National Organization for Women; the California Teachers Association; the California League of Conservation Voters; the Pro-Life Council; Planned Parenthood; the California League of Cities; the National Rifle Association; Service Employees International Union; the Sierra Club; even the Nurses Association. There are few interest groups in California that don’t use these candidate questionnaires.

And here's the deal: Groups have the right to ask candidates anything they want—there's nothing wrong with that, although I would say that the more specific the questions get, the more challenging it is for any candidate to answer them honestly. If there are broad questions, asking, for example, “What would you do to make our economy work better and create jobs?” those are safe places for candidates to give their best thoughts about what they can do in office to promote their point of view. But the narrower the questions get, the more they enter into some dangerous territory because candidates don’t know the exact circumstances in which they’re going to cast a vote on a legislative matter. They don’t know what the state of the economy will be or what the state of the budget will be. It’s risky to put forward a position—a very specific position—when they really don't know all the details and they haven’t had the benefit of a public hearing and public input.

Groups still have the right to ask those questions, and candidates should be expected to give their thoughts about those issues as best they can— that's a healthy part of our democracy. But the problem with these candidate questionnaires is the issue of transparency. Most of these question and answer instruments are kept secret. Nobody knows the questions or answers except for the interest groups involved.

I refer to these secret questionnaires as the new smoke-filled “back room” of politics because many of these groups are asking for commitments, and they don't want anyone really to know about them.

Our elected officials are essentially making secret pledges to protect the status quo before they are even sworn into office. Questionnaires are not just pursuing position insights. As noted by San Francisco Chronicle reporter, John Diaz, they are, “demanding to know, before a politician enters office: ‘Who’s your daddy?’ Voters deserve to know the answer.”

When you go through these questionnaires, there's no doubt about the answers that the interest group wants to hear from you.

Most of the questions require yes or no answers. Some of them have more than 70 questions. One is more than 13 pages long. If you don’t fill out these questionnaires, you're not going to get an interview by the group, you’re not going to get an endorsement, and you're not going to get any kind of campaign contribution. So these questionnaires are the entry point for this very insidious relationship between interests and candidates.

In my most recent election for office, I didn't fill out any of them, and I took the consequences of that. I said that if I had a position on a public issue, I posted it on my webpage for everybody to see. I challenged my opponent to do the same, to disclose: If you felt it was important to fill these questionnaires out, then let everybody know the answer.

In so many elections that we’re seeing today, candidates preach their independence from interest groups: “I’m going to stand up for the people.” Requiring them to disclose any answers to questionnaires is holding them accountable for those claims: Well did you make promises? Who did you make them to? What did you say? If you’re going to say you're independent, this is your chance to prove it. As the editorial page editor of the Sacramento Bee wrote, “Questions posed by interest groups and the answers given should be public. Voters should make that a litmus test. I certainly will.”

CASE

You are running for office in a three way race. One of your opponents has just announced that she will not sign any pledges or answer any questionnaires propounded by special interest groups because to do so will tie her hands later and leave her without the benefit of hearing from all sides of a legislative issue. She calls upon all candidates in the race to do the same. A prerequisite to receiving endorsements from a number of these special interest groups is to first answer their questionnaires. The other candidate in the race is answering as many questionnaires as he can and is racking up endorsements.

What do you do?

CHAPTER 4

RAISING AND SPENDING MONEY THE RIGHT WAY

Washington is like a strip club. You got people tossing dollars, and people doing the dance.

--Mike Huckabee, former Republican governor of Arkansas

I remember the comment of a well-known big money-raising state delegate from Virginia. He said, ‘Lean to the green,’ … and he wasn’t an environmentalist.

--Leslie Byrne, former Democratic congresswoman from Virginia

FIVE TIPS ON THE ETHICAL WAY TO FUNDRAISE AND PAY FOR YOUR CAMPAIGN

Maintain independence from funders.

Manage donor expectations.

Disclose donors.

Don’t use public resources for political purposes.

Be a good steward of donated campaign funds.

This chapter discusses how to ethically raise money for your campaign while at the same time preserving your independence. We do not endeavor to enter the complex world of campaign finance regulations. Each jurisdiction-large and small has particular rules and regulations that covered everything from contribution limits, reporting, disclosure of donors, and the nature of expenditures. It is essential that you retain a political treasurer and/or attorney who is conversant in these regulations.

Campaigns are expensive. A campaign has to be able to get the candidate’s name and message out to the people, and that takes money. Given our current campaign finance system, unless a candidate is a self-funder, he or she will have to ask others for contributions. Even self-funders sometimes ask for money because the press uses amounts raised by a campaign as an indication of a candidate’s popularity. The old adage, “Money begets money,” was never so true as in political fundraising.

The problem with our current system is that the public generally distrusts candidates who receive money from others, fearing that the mere fact of a political contribution creates a bias in favor of the contributor. ³⁰The fact that a candidate has received a contribution and later takes an official action in favor of the contributor may not be evidence in and of itself of corruption. The public may nevertheless believe that the candidate is in the pocket of the donor.

Most politicians are not corrupt. They are civic-minded people who want to enter public service and enact change for the common good. They are, however, faced with the unenviable dilemma of having to “beg” for campaign contributions before they can help their communities. And because of this, they are vilified before they even begin. How can a candidate navigate the world of campaign finance without being lumped in with the corrupt? An ethical candidate is one who can raise funds while at the same time maintaining his or her independence.

Maintain Independence

Most elected officials do not engage in the type of quid pro quo politics where a candidate or official says to a donor, “If you give me money, I will do X for you personally.” That of course would be illegal extortion. The flip side—when a contributor says, if you do X for me, I will give you campaign funds—is also illegal. That‘s bribery. Although these illegal activities do occur, it’s often in other more subtle and legal ways that money influences policy.³¹ Accordingly, this is not an area where the law alone should inform actions but rather the candidate’s ethics.

Public officials take on certain ethical duties when they enter public service, including the duty of impartiality. This means they have an ethical responsibility to treat all constituents equally, not just those who donated to their campaign. Ethics requires that a candidate be willing to risk his or her financial relationships, and possibly the ability to get elected, by maintaining independence and by being committed to the people alone—not to moneyed interests.

When a candidate engages in fundraising, the candidate needs to be wary of potential dependencies that the donation will tempt down the line. For example, will the now-elected official feel compelled to give donors more favorable treatment than other citizens out of gratitude for past contributions? Will he or she consider undertaking a legislative course of action, not because it is for the public good, but because it will ensure further support of a particular donor down the road? Will the official change positions to match a contributor’s agenda? When an official has 20 calls to return, whose does the official return first—the constituent with a pressing governmental problem, or a once and potentially future donor? In creating policy for a campaign, do donors have more influence than others on the candidate’s positions?

Officials must be vigilant and honest with themselves when undertaking any official action. It is necessary to engage in a reality check, and ask, why this action? Why now? Is the action in the public’s interest—or does it stem from the official’s dependency on a particular donor? It’s always possible that the public’s interest and the donor’s interest align—but that conclusion should only be reached after honest reflection on the official’s true motivations.

It’s helpful for the public official to have a framework for ethical decision making to rely on before taking any official action, separate and apart from any financial considerations. The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics has developed the “Framework for Ethical Decision Making,” which has been used by professionals the world over. By posing a series of questions, the framework provides ethical filters for looking at ethical dilemmas. The framework can be found in full at the end of this book.³²

Manage Donor Expectations

Since the common wisdom seems to be that “money talks” in politics, it should not be surprising when donors believe that their money will “speak” to the candidate and successfully sway the candidate toward their point of view. How does the ethical candidate counter this expectation of reward for a donation?

One strategy is for the candidate to be forearmed with clearly articulated positions. The candidate should be prepared with substantive policy statements on the campaign website. The candidate’s positions should be reinforced by consistent messaging in ads, campaign events, statements to the press, responses to debate questions, and answers to candidate questionnaires. Well publicized policy objectives will make it less likely for donors to believe the candidate will change his or her mind because of financial incentives.

Another tactic for managing donor expectations involves the process for asking for contributions. When making solicitations, the campaign must be clear that the only reason a person should contribute is that on balance, the donor supports the candidate’s policy objectives. For those matters yet to be anticipated, explain that the candidate will use best judgment based on experience, knowledge, and values. A general statement on the campaign website regarding the candidate’s philosophy on donations will be helpful in educating donors. In addition, campaigns might consider a friendly disclaimer on campaign solicitation materials that alerts donors to the fact that campaign contributions will not provide greater access or influence.

EXAMPLE:

Dear Friend,

We are grateful to you for your contribution! By contributing you have joined your neighbors and friends who believe that together we can bring about a better future for our children. Your generous contribution will help pay for the campaign-related expenses necessary for our success on election day. Of course, no outcome is guaranteed, nor is greater access or influence promised as a result of a political contribution. What I do promise is to always use my best judgment to take actions that further the common good. Thank you for your belief in me.

Taking steps to send a loud and clear message that a candidate cannot be bought or influenced by contributions will reinforce the candidate’s image as a person of high ethical character and may reduce encounters with unethical contributors.

Disclose Donor Information

Voters are distrustful of anonymous contributors. They want to know to whom a candidate is beholden and who might be trying to exert influence. If a candidate is afraid to be publicly aligned with a particular donor for fear it will hurt his or her chances with the general electorate, the candidate should not be tempted to take the contribution in the first place. This is the reason that election laws universally require disclosure of direct political contributions. Campaigns need to hire a good treasurer, knowledgeable in the political reporting requirements governing the candidate’s chosen office.

The ethical dilemma regarding disclosure arises when donations are not made directly to a candidate, but rather to an independent expenditure committee (I.E.) that indirectly supports the candidate. Some independent expenditures are made by organizations that don’t have to disclose their members.³³ It may be difficult for a candidate to know of the existence of an I.E. or the contributors to it. However, the candidate should always be forthright about the need for transparency in campaign finance and encourage disclosure on the part of any group raising money and acting on the candidate’s behalf. We cannot advise strongly enough that campaigns should always seek legal counsel on all of the laws and regulations governing campaign contributions and disclosure requirements.

Refrain from Using Public Resources for Campaigning

An ethical dilemma peculiar to those candidates who already hold office is the temptation to use public resources to help defray campaign costs. Public officials have an ethical duty of loyalty to the public they serve. This means they have to put the public’s interest before their personal political pursuits. Implicit in this ideal is the principle that a public official can’t use taxpayer-funded public resources for political gain. For example, a candidate cannot use government office space, equipment, vehicles, or email accounts for campaign-related activities. Nor should an official use any indicia of office, such as agency letterhead or the agency seal, on campaign materials. Many jurisdictions have restrictions on incumbent mass mailings or other official contact with voters close to an election. Other rules prevent images of uniformed law enforcement in campaign materials or commercials.

Be wary about government staff participation in political campaigns. Government staffers also owe their allegiance to the public that pays their salaries. They too are considered a public resource. They are hired to help all constituents, not just those who support the official’s election. Some may argue, correctly, that staffers have an independent First Amendment right to support their boss’ campaign if they wish. However, they must not be coerced into helping, and they must do so voluntarily on their own time—on their own dime. Because it is so easy for the lines to get blurred, many incumbents have a strong firewall between government and politics, and don’t allow their staff members to participate at all in their campaigns. With a thick wall, there is also no chance that staff will perceive any implied coercion. It only takes one disgruntled government staffer to derail a campaign.

It is also illegal in many jurisdictions to ask staff to contribute to a public official’s campaign. Regardless of legality, candidates should consider whether it is ethical to ask staff to contribute. Will staffers feel an implied threat that if they don’t contribute to their boss they will lose their job? By soliciting campaign funds from staff, does the official send the message that staff loyalties should be to the official first rather than the public that they were hired to serve?

Note too that it would be a misuse of public resources to ask staff to look into a matter that would benefit the campaign. A good rule of thumb, as stated by California’s Institute for Local Government, is, “If you wouldn’t ask staff to look into a matter if you weren’t running for re-election, it isn’t appropriate to ask staff to look into it when you are.”³⁴ The same holds true for using official public meeting time as an opportunity to make a campaign speech. If in doubt as to what is a public resource, make sure that the campaign seeks advice of campaign counsel. An ethics violation complaint for misuse of public resources is the last thing a campaign wants to be known for.

Be a Good Steward of Donated Campaign Funds

When people donate funds to a cause—be it a political campaign or a nonprofit—they expect the funds to be used to further the organization’s mission. In the case of campaign contributions, the expectation is that the funds will be used for legitimate campaign operations to help get the candidate elected. That is why outrage erupts when contributors learn that their donations have been used for personal purposes such as flying the family pet rabbit across the country (the way Republican Duncan Hunter did³⁵) or purchasing Michael Jackson memorabilia (the way Democrat Jesse Jackson, Jr. did³⁶).

When campaign funds are used for the candidate’s personal benefit with the donor’s permission, the appearance is that the funds are a blatant attempt to wield influence. The donation looks more like a gift (or a bribe) rather than a legitimate political contribution.

For these reasons, many jurisdictions have legislated parameters on appropriate campaign spending. For example, in California, the expenditures of state campaign funds are highly regulated and must be “reasonably related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose.” The rules require, among other things, that mileage spent for travel is reimbursable if related to the campaign, but clothing is a personal expense and campaign funds generally cannot be used for attire. A campaign can use funds to purchase office equipment, but if it purchases any vehicles, the title must be held by the campaign committee. A campaign meal that is less than $200 can be reimbursed if “reasonably related” to a campaign activity. If the meal costs more than $200, there must be a direct connection between the meal and the campaign.³⁷ As you can see, these rules are very specific and can get quite complicated. The campaign should always seek legal counsel about the regulations governing its particular jurisdiction.

Comments from former Congressman and California State Senator Tom Campbell

When I was in Congress there was an issue regarding capital gains tax that was pending in the House. During the legislative process on this bill, I received a call from a very good, longstanding friend who had contributed to my campaigns in the past.

We spoke about the content of the bill and he advised me as to what he thought was the best thing for our country and the congressional district I represented. It was a very positive, useful conversation.

At the end of the conversation, my friend said, “I look forward to seeing you next week, I know you’re doing a fundraiser.” I said, “I immediately have to hang up the phone now. I’ll call you back.” And that’s just what I did. I hung up the phone and then left the building because this phone conversation had taken place in the congressional office building.

I went across the street to the Republican political office and I called him back. I said, “You can never bring up a fundraiser when we’ve been talking about the substance of a bill that’s up for a vote or a public policy matter more generally.

And by combining those two you put yourself and me at great risk. Even though I, of course, don’t have the slightest hesitation about your goodwill and the ethics of the situation, I just wanted you to know how sensitive we should be.” I lost this person as a friend for a couple of years because he was so angry with me.

Two years later, a state senator was indicted and convicted in Sacramento on political corruption charges. He had accepted a campaign contribution at the Hyatt hotel across from the capitol from an undercover FBI agent.

As the agent handed the senator the check he said, “And we really appreciate your work on [a particular piece of legislation].” Tying the receipt of the check with the praise for the senator’s legislative activity provided part of the basis for the senator’s corruption charge. After my friend read about this incident, he called me and said, “I appreciate your sensitivity. I’m sorry for what happened.” So that story ended well, but it might not have.

Candidates for office can benefit from establishing best practices that their campaigns can follow. First of all, a candidate for office who is already in an office must be absolute in separating any conversations regarding the substantive matters before that elected official and campaign contributions or campaign events.

And so the first rule is, separate all conversations. If you are in a situation like I was, hang up the phone immediately, and then have a political phone that you can use outside of your office. Oftentimes, in Campbell where my district office was in the Bay Area, I would go across the street to a coffee shop and make a call from there.

The second recommendation I have is, never have your government staff work on any aspect of your political campaign. Many times you hear candidates for office who are in office say, “Well, my governmental employees volunteered to help out the campaign.” No, don’t do that! Don’t even come close. It will appear to the outside world as though you are combining government with politics and fundraising. The time will come when somebody who has contributed will see that same person with whom they had interacted politically in your government office, and naturally the possibilities of inappropriate overlap then are great.

Third and last, schedule your political fundraising events well in advance. That way you can say, “This fundraiser was already on the calendar. It was not set because there was a vote happening.” If possible, schedule any fundraising events outside the time when the legislature is sitting. These are good practices that will allow you to avoid the implication as well as the reality of an ethical conflict.

CASE

You are an incumbent city council member seeking reelection. You have a group of eight old college friends who spend an annual boating weekend at the home of one the group. The host, a successful commercial building contractor, is very generous and pays for everything associated with the weekend. This year, your host is additionally going to hold a fundraiser for your city council reelection campaign during the boating weekend. He tells you that he is going to induce others to make a significant donation to your campaign at the event. Six weeks before the event, you and the host are discussing the fundraiser invitation list, when your friend casually mentions that he plans to bid on a significant city contract for the first time. What should you do?

CHAPTER 5

BUILDING THE ETHICAL CAMPAIGN ORGANIZATION

It is a terrible thing to look over your shoulder when you are trying to lead and find no one there.

--Franklin Roosevelt

Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head.

--Euripides

FIVE TIPS FOR CREATING AN ETHICAL CAMPAIGN CULTURE

Create and execute a campaign code of conduct

Designate a campaign ethics officer

Control your message by selecting a limited number of spokespeople

Publicize your commitment to ethics

Enlist others to support ethical campaigning

As with any organization, it is important for the leaders to set the ethical tone at the top. In the campaign setting the leaders are the candidate, campaign manager, strategic political consultants, and senior staff. It is essential for the candidate to articulate a clear set of standards by which the campaign is to be run. The campaign leaders need to model the ethical behavior that the standards represent. If you have a campaign leadership position, make it known that the standards are applicable to all staff, volunteers, and anyone acting on your behalf whether they are associated with the campaign or not.

A good way to articulate these standards is to create a code of conduct for your campaign. This should be done in the very early organizing stages. A code of conduct will help inform your strategy as the campaign proceeds and will establish clear guidelines for you, your staff, and volunteers. In the heat of the battle, when ethical lapses are most likely to occur, it is helpful to look to your standards to help guide your actions.

When developing a code of conduct for your campaign, consider what your core values are and how you want your campaign to be conducted in accordance with these values. For example, you might want to consider values such as commitment to the public good, honesty, transparency, accountability, integrity, and fairness. Next establish what kind of campaign conduct comports with your identified values. Your organization’s campaign code of conduct should make it clear that it applies to anyone involved in your campaign and that there are clearly defined consequences for a violation.

In designing the code for your campaign, it is helpful to look at a few campaign ethics codes enacted by state legislatures to serve as guides. California for example has a voluntary Code of Fair Campaign Practices that is given to all candidates when they file to run:

CALIFORNIA CODE OF FAIR CAMPAIGN PRACTICES

There are basic principles of decency, honesty, and fair play which every candidate for public office in the State of California has a moral obligation to observe and uphold in order that, after vigorously contested but fairly conducted campaigns, our citizens may exercise their constitutional right to a free and untrammeled choice and the will of the people may be fully and clearly expressed on the issues.

THEREFORE:

(1) I SHALL CONDUCT my campaign openly and publicly, discussing the issues as I see them, presenting my record and policies with sincerity and frankness, and criticizing without fear or favor the record and policies of my opponents or political parties that merit this criticism.

(2)  I SHALL NOT USE OR PERMIT the use of character defamation, whispering campaigns, libel, slander, or scurrilous attacks on any candidate or his or her personal or family life.

(3) I SHALL NOT USE OR PERMIT any appeal to negative prejudice based on a candidate's actual or perceived race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, age, sexual orientation, sex, including gender identity, or any other characteristic set forth in Section 12940 of the Government Code, or association with another person who has any of the actual or perceived characteristics set forth in Section 12940 of the Government Code.

(4) I SHALL NOT USE OR PERMIT any dishonest or unethical practice that tends to corrupt or undermine our American system of free elections, or that hampers or prevents the full and free expression of the will of the voters including acts intended to hinder or prevent any eligible person from registering to vote, enrolling to vote, or voting.

(5)  I SHALL NOT coerce election help or campaign contributions for myself or for any other candidate from my employees.

(6) I SHALL IMMEDIATELY AND PUBLICLY REPUDIATE support deriving from any individual or group that resorts, on behalf of my candidacy or in opposition to that of my opponent, to the methods and tactics that I condemn.  I shall accept responsibility to take firm action against any subordinate who violates any provision of this code or the laws governing elections.

(7)  I SHALL DEFEND AND UPHOLD the right of every qualified American voter to full and equal participation in the electoral process.

I, the undersigned, candidate for election to public office in the State of California or treasurer or chairperson of a committee making any independent expenditures, hereby voluntarily endorse, subscribe to, and solemnly pledge myself to conduct my campaign in accordance with the above principles and practices.” ³⁸

In Maine, candidates are provided with the following Code:

MAINE CODE of FAIR CAMPAIGN PRACTICES

I shall conduct my campaign and, to the extent reasonably possible, insist that my supporters conduct themselves, in a manner consistent with the best Maine and American traditions, discussing the issues and presenting my record and policies with sincerity and candor.

I shall uphold the right of every qualified voter to free and equal participation in the election process.

I shall not participate in and I shall condemn defamation of and other attacks on any opposing candidate or party that I do not believe to be truthful, provable and relevant to my campaign.

I shall not use or authorize and I shall condemn material relating to my campaign that falsifies, misrepresents or distorts the facts, including, but not limited to, malicious or unfounded accusations creating or exploiting doubts as to the morality, patriotism or motivations of any party or candidate.

I shall not appeal to and I shall condemn appeals to prejudices based on race, creed, sex or national origin.

I shall not practice and I shall condemn practices that tend to corrupt or undermine the system of free election or that hamper or prevent the free expression of the will of the voters.

I shall promptly and publicly repudiate the support of any individual or group that resorts, on behalf of my candidacy or in opposition to that of an opponent, to methods in violation of the letter or spirit of this code.

I, the undersigned, candidate for election to public office in the State of Maine, hereby voluntarily endorse, subscribe to and solemnly pledge to conduct my campaign in accordance with the above principles and practices.³⁹

Please see examples of other campaign codes of conduct in the Appendix.

When you are staffing up the campaign organization, make sure that all staff and volunteers receive a copy of the campaign code of conduct. Have an all-hands meeting to educate the members of the organization about your values and vision for the campaign. To reinforce how serious you are about running an ethical campaign, consider having all staff and volunteers sign the code, and keep copies of the signed documents.

Ethical campaigns often have one person who is designated as the de facto ethics officer. This person should be prepared to act as an advisor to you when ethical dilemmas arise. The ethics officer should be responsible for vetting all communications issued by the campaign to ensure they comport with the campaign’s values. If a communication is a negative comparison piece, the ethics officer should confirm that there is documentation supporting the allegations. If the campaign communication creates a deceptive inference, it is up to the ethics officer to advise against it. The ethics officer will also oversee actions of consultants, staff, and volunteers to ensure compliance with the code of conduct and should have authority to recommend consequences arising as a result of a violation of the code.

In order to run an ethical campaign, it is important to retain control of your message. Many campaigns find it helpful to limit the number of people who can speak to the media to a designated few so that the message is consistent and consistently ethical. Make sure that your fundraisers are also consistent in messaging and that they are not making promises that aren’t in line with your policies and values.

There are many rules and regulations governing campaigns including campaign finance, report filing, signature gathering, advertising content, and signage. These rules are often complicated and provide traps for the unwary which can lead to a claim of an ethics violation filed against you. It is essential that you retain professional legal advice on compliance with the laws in your jurisdiction. It is also essential that your conduct leave little doubt as to your ethics. Don’t even get close to crossing an ethical line. It’s not unusual for unscrupulous opponents to anonymously file ethics complaints so that the headlines scream, “Ethic’s Complaint Filed Against [You]!” You are left in the position of having to explain—and as we noted before—if you’re explaining, you’re losing!

Running an ethical campaign can help you win. Voters are weary of the negative aspects of our political process. If their positions and the candidate’s positions align, most voters prefer to vote for the ethical candidate. Making ethics a major theme of your campaign will appeal to those voters.

Your announcement speech should emphasize your commitment to running an ethical campaign and why you believe that this is important. Publicize your commitment to ethics both on your website and in your public interviews. Post your signed campaign code of conduct on your website. Consider taking an online course on ethical campaigning and putting the badge of completion on your website and campaign materials. Encourage editorial boards and other endorsing organizations to ask all candidates if they have taken any campaign ethics training.

Publicly call for ethical debates that fulfill the responsibility of all campaigns to create an informed electorate. Instead of tuning in only to be subject to a hate fest, viewers should be treated to substantive discussions where policy positions are pronounced, compared, and contrasted. In addition, when negotiating debate rules, publicly suggest that the question of commitment to campaign ethics be asked by moderators. By taking the lead in calling for ethical debates you will enhance your reputation as an ethical candidate.

Educate the media on ethical campaign practices. When asked by the press to comment negatively about your opponent, remember to ask yourself whether the content of the question is true, relevant, and fair. If it is not, don’t take the bait but rather decline to comment. Always try to steer the conversation back to your message on the true issues in the race. By refusing to participate in “gotcha” politics, you will signal to the press, the public, and your opponents that you are committed to running a substantive, ethical campaign.

Educate the public on how to identify an ethical candidate. On your website consider posting a list of deceptive tactics voters should look for when analyzing political messages. You also might consider a fact check page on your website not only pointing out untruths made by your opponent but also documenting assertions you have made. Remind voters often that how a candidate campaigns likely demonstrates how he or she will govern.

Finally, challenge your opponent to promise to run an ethical campaign. Make it clear you are not interested in trapping the opponent in an unethical lapse but that you are truly dedicated to raising the level of political discourse. If your opponent declines to promise to conduct the campaign in an ethical manner, it will speak volumes to the voters about what type of leader he or she will be.

Comments by Ann Skeet, Senior Director of Leadership Ethics at the Markkula Center of Applied Ethics

Ethical leadership creates an environment where the goals and values of people working in the organization align with its mission. That is particularly important in a campaign organization, where the pressures of the race may tempt people to lose sight of these basics. There are six ways leaders reinforce ethical leadership in organizations across all sectors. Taken together they create a model for exploring an ethical leadership practice. 

1. Modeling: Character and Values

The first way is simply how the leader shows up in the world, revealing her character and values to others.  This is a fundamental element contributing to how much impact she can have. 

Regardless of what actions she takes, they will be received through the lens of what kind of person she is.  If she is perceived to be virtuous and to have strong moral character and integrity, the actions she takes will have more force than if someone with questionable character made them.

2. Creating Community 

Ethical leaders invest in creating community. They do this by using the organization’s mission and shared values as the cornerstone for decision making. They recognize and leverage the agreements between various stakeholders and reinforce their commitment to these agreements at key moments. They tell stories and model behaviors that contribute to a strong culture, by connecting to values reflected in the organization.

3. Encouraging Ethical Conduct

Such leaders are comfortable actively encouraging and promoting awareness of ethical conduct at work. They focus on intent and action, and are alert to the traps that limit humans’ abilities to behave well.  Falsely identifying decisions as monetary or business decisions when they are ethical ones, working too quickly to allow for moral reasoning, or asking people to act when they are tired or scared are all tendencies that can lead to ethical missteps. Leaders can hedge against these very human tendencies a variety of ways, signaling by questions asked, using inquiry to highlight virtues sought, and by reframing issues so the ethical dilemmas within them are clearer. Acting upon decisions requires good, old-fashioned courage at times and an alertness to the pitfalls of groupthink.

4. Being Disciplined in Their Role 

The most effective ethical leaders play their position relentlessly. People in formal leadership roles are charged with representing specific interests. Formal leaders accept explicit responsibility for making course corrections if they identify an interest mismatch or conflict. Informal leaders are frequently identified because they implicitly accept similar responsibility even if it is not called for in the formal role they hold. Both formal and informal leaders are mindful of the various and often conflicting roles they have in life and are disciplined to make decisions with heightened awareness to honor their role’s obligations. By clearly identifying decisions that can be made by individuals or should be made collaboratively, leaders help others in the organization exercise this same discipline and appreciate and honor the wisdom of decisions reached.

5. Clarifying Culture

In spite of effort and intentions, things go wrong. When they do, ethical leaders pause to clarify culture. At such times, they reinforce or revisit the organization’s mission and identify any gaps between stated and actual values, own the gaps and clear up confusion between policy and practice.

As the culture evolves and becomes more clear, others in the organization can determine whether their personal values and the organization’s values align.

6. Designing Ethical Systems

Leaders committed to such a practice accept responsibility for designing ethical systems in the organization that use goals, mission, and values to make decisions about compensation and other rewards, like promotions. Such leaders invest in individual and personal development. It is a part of their practice to grow their own knowledge and contribute beyond their own organization.

Masters in this area contribute to design principles and standards in their industry or other relevant ecosystems.

It is useful to study a person’s ability to use these five levers of ethical leadership as one way to measure someone’s effectiveness as a leader.  People with strong character and the ability to put these practices to use are more likely to create organizations where the mission is clear and the values of the organization and the people working in it line up, contributing to longer, healthier relationships between organizations and the people connected to them and increasing the likelihood of fulfilling organizations’ purposes and goals.

CASE

According to the pundits, the chances are about fifty-fifty that you are going to lose your reelection. A good friend has told you that he has decided to spend $1,000,000 in independent expenditures on your behalf. You give your friend immense thanks, but you let him know that the law prohibits your campaign from coordinating with any Independent Expenditure Committees. You tell him that this is the last that you and he can ever speak of it. Delighted, you mention the good news to your campaign manager in confidence.

The next day you notice new content on your campaign website. It is an open letter to supporters from your campaign manager detailing a campaign wish list of items that their contributions will help buy. The wish list includes content of potential ads and details about potential ad buys in different media markets—information that could prove very helpful to an Independent Expenditure Committee wondering how best to help the campaign. Reasoning that neither you nor your campaign have actually coordinated with the Independent Expenditure Committee, you say nothing to your campaign manager and allow the wish list to remain. The next week another open letter to supporters appears on your website with a new wish list.

Is your conduct ethical?

CONCLUSION

The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.

--Mahatma Gandhi

     The time is always right to do what is right.

--Martin Luther King

TEN TAKE AWAYS FROM THIS GUIDE

Ethical campaigns stay true to their values, take the high road, and don’t engage in dirty tricks.

Ethical candidates avoid being pulled into the mud.

Ethical campaign communications are those that are truthful, relevant, fair, and substantive.

Ethical campaign promises are those that are transparent, consistent, and capable of being performed.

Ethical candidates manage donor expectations regarding access and influence.

Ethical candidates never mix government with politics.

Ethical campaign leaders set the tone at the top of the top of the campaign organization.

Ethical campaigns have a campaign code of conduct that applies to all involved in the campaign.

Ethical campaign organizations have a designated person tasked with ensuring that all campaign conduct and communications comply with the campaign’s values.

Ethical campaigns comply with all campaign rules and regulations in their jurisdiction.

Ethical conduct in political campaigns, as in other human endeavors, requires information, preparation, and personal reflection. With the overarching goal of strengthening democracy, ethical candidates engage in campaign practices that will inform the electorate, restore trust in government, and fulfill ethical duties owed to the people that the candidate seeks to represent. Establishing early on a set of principles and ethical guidelines for your campaign will help inform your decision making when confronted with the ethical choices all candidates face in the course of a political race.

Never forget that as a political candidate you are in essence applying for a job, and the voters are your future employers. The job that you seek is a position of trust--your future constituents are going to trust you to be a good steward of public funds, trust you to always act on their behalf, and trust you to always act in the public’s best interest, not your own. When you enter public service, you will assume fiduciary duties of loyalty, care, and fairness as a result of the trust placed in you by the voters. In order to get the job, your campaign should demonstrate that you understand these duties and that you are committed to working for the common good. Political campaigns are often the first time, and sometimes the only way, the public learns about would-be elected officials. If you campaign with integrity, you will send a clear signal as to how you will govern.

To borrow from John Adams, imagine a political world where “greatness not meanness” is the norm, where people trust their elected officials, and where public service is once again considered a noble calling.  By dedicating yourself to running an ethical campaign, you have taken the first step in helping make that vision a reality.

Endnotes

Notes

[←1]

United States Election Project, “2016 November General Election Turnout Rates,” United States Election Project Website, Electproject.org, http://www.electproject.org/2016g

[←2]

Drew De Silver, “US Trails Most Developed Countries in Voter Turnout.” Pew Research Center Website, PewResearch.org., May 21, 2018, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/15/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/

[←3]

Christine Trost and Matt Grossmann, eds., Win the Right Way: How to Run Effective Local Campaigns in California,(Berkeley: Berkeley Public Policy Press, Institute of Governmental Studies, 2005)

[←4]

Donna Brazille, “Russian DNC Narrative Played Out Exactly As They Hoped,” Time, March 17, 2017,

http://time.com/4705515/donna-brazile-russia-emails-clinton/

[←5]

Katie Reilly, “Read Hillary Clinton’s ‘Basket of Deplorables’ Remarks About Donald Trump Supporters,” Time, September 10, 2016, http://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables-transcript/

[←6]

Nolan D. McCaskill, “Trump Accuses Cruz’s Father of Helping JFK Assassin,” Politico, May 3, 2016, https://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/05/trump-ted-cruz-father-222730

[←7]

Derek Hawkins, “No You Can’t Text Your Vote. But These Fake Ads Tell Clinton Supporters to Do Just That,” Washington Post, November 3, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/03/no-you-cant-text-your-vote-but-these-ads-tell-clinton-supporters-to-do-just-that/?utm_term=.f8f57a9121f4

[←8]

Ryan Lizza, “Ted Cruz’s Iowa Mailers Are More Fraudulent than Everyone Thinks, “ The New Yorker, January 31, 2016, https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ted-cruzs-iowa-mailers-are-more-fraudulent-than-everyone-thinks

[←9]

Alexandra Jaffe, “Donald Trump Has ‘Small Hands’ Marco Rubio Says,” NBC News, February 29, 2016, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-has-small-hands-marco-rubio-says-n527791

[←10]

Steve Eder and Jonathan Martin, “Videos put Democrats on Defensive About Dirty Tricks,” New York Times, October 20, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/politics/video-dnc-trump-rallies.html

[←11]

Jenna Johnson, “Timeline of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz Bickering About Their Wives,” Washington Post, March 24, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/24/timeline-of-donald-trump-and-ted-cruz-bickering-about-their-wives/?utm_term=.3f414a66c38c

[←12]

Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, “The Plot to Subvert an Election; Unraveling the Russia Story So Far,” New York Times, September 20, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/20/us/politics/russia-interference-election-trump-clinton.html

[←13]

Letter from John Adams to James Warren, 22 April 1776, National Archives: Founders Online, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06-04-02-0052

[←14]

Joseph Cummins, Anything for a Vote: Dirty Tricks, Cheap Shots, and October Surprises in US Presidential Campaigns (Philadelphia: Quirk Books, 2015), Kindle Edition.

[←15]

Cummins, Anything for a Vote: Dirty Tricks, Cheap Shots, and October Surprises in US Presidential Campaigns

[←16]

Bob Greene, “Mudslinging Campaigns Hurt the Country,” CNN, September 2, 2012, http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/02/opinion/greene-campaign-mud-slinging/index.html

[←17]

Frank Newport, “Most in U.S. Say Politics in Washington Cause Serious Harm,” Gallup, January 7, 2013, https://news.gallup.com/poll/159728/say-politics-washington-cause-serious-harm.aspx

[←18]

Joe Guzzardi, “Goldwater Refused to Exploit a Sex Scandal Involving Top LBJ Assistant, “ Lodi News-Sentinel, August 31, 2007, https://www.lodinews.com/opinion/columnists/joe_guzzardi/article_7b3adeaf-ccb4-5d0f-a0ce-24de05e9adc7.html

[←19]

Katharine Q. Seelye, “The 2000 Campaign: The Debate; Gore Aide Receives, Then Lets Go Of Hot Potato,” New York Times, September 14, 2000, https://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/14/us/the-2000-campaign-the-debate-gore-aide-receives-then-lets-go-of-hot-potato.html

[←20]

Jonathan Martin and Amie Parnes, “McCain: Obama Not An Arab, Crowd Boos,” Politico, October 10, 2008, https://www.politico.com/story/2008/10/mccain-obama-not-an-arab-crowd-boos-014479

[←21]

Commission on Presidential Debates, “October 21, 1984, debate transcript,” Commission on Presidential Debates website, Debates.org, October 21, 1984, http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-21-1984-debate-transcript

[←22]

Robin Abcarian, “Michelle Obama’s Stunning Convention Speech: ’When They Go Low, We Go High’” Los Angeles Times, July 25, 2016 http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-michelle-speech-20160725-snap-story.html

[←23]

American Association of Political Consultants, “AAPC Board of Directors’ Declaration Regarding ‘Push Polling,’” The American Association of Political Consultants Website, TheAAPC.org, https://theaapc.org/about-us/policy-statements-2/push-polling-statement/

[←24]

Dana Radcliffe, “The cost of Deceptive Politics,” Huffington Post, November 9 2012 (updated January 9, 2013), https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-radcliffe/political-lies_b_2094820.html

[←25]

Commonwealth Club, “Transcript: Inside Political Campaigns: Money, Ethics, and the Future,” Commonwealth Club Website, CommonwealthClub.Org, October 12, 2015, https://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/2015-10-12/inside-political-campaigns-money-ethics-and-future

[←26]

Native Advertising Institute, “Native Advertising Defined,” Native Advertising Institute Website, NativeAdvertisingInstitute.org, https://nativeadvertisinginstitute.com/resources/native-advertising-definition/

[←27]

L. Sandy Maisel, “Candidates: Promises and Persuasion,” in Shades of Gray: Perspectives on Campaign Ethics, eds. Candace J. Nelson, David A. Dulio, and Stephen K. Medvik (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2002), 55

[←28]

Maisel, “Candidates, Promises and Persuasion,” 55

[←29]

Z. Byron Wolf, “Six Things Presidents Wish They Hadn’t Said,” CNN, November 2, 2013, https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/02/politics/obama-read-my-lips-moment/index.html

[←30]

See generally, Lawrence Lessig, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It (New York: Twelve, Hatchette Book Group,2011)

[←31]

See, Lessig, Republic Lost

[←32]

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, “A Framework for Ethical Decision Making, “ Markkula Center for Applied Ethics Website, SCU.Edu/Ethics, https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/a-framework-for-ethical-decision-making/

[←33]

Nonprofits organized under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(4) or 501(c)(6) do not have to disclose members. For more information see, https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/nonprof_summ.php

[←34]

Institute for Local Government, “Campaigning for Reelection: Legal and Ethical Red Flags,” Institute for Local Government Website, CA-ILG.org, August, 2010; updated April, 2014, http://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/7-red_flags_august_2014_update.pdf

[←35]

Ricky Young, “Congressman Spent Campaign Funds for Rabbit Air Travel,” Los Angeles Times, January 5, 2017, http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sd-me-hunter-rabbits-20170103-story.html

[←36]

Michael S. Schmidt, “Lavish Lifestyle of a Lawmaker Yields Federal Charges,” New York Times, February 15, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/us/politics/jesse-jackson-jr-charged-in-misuse-of-campaign-money.html

[←37]

California Fair Political Practices Commission, “ Information for State Candidates, Their Controlled Committees, and Primarily Formed Committees for State Candidates,” California Fair Political Practices Commission Website, FPPC.org, August, 2018, Manual 1, Chapter 6., http://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NS-Documents/TAD/Campaign%20Manuals/Manual_1/Entire-Manual-1.pdf

[←38]

California Election Code §20440

[←39]

MRSA Tit. 21A § 1101

APPENDIX A

A FRAMEWORK FOR ETHICAL DECISION MAKING

FROM THE MARKKULA CENTER FOR APPLIED ETHICS

We all have an image of our better selves-of how we are when we act ethically or are "at our best." We probably also have an image of what an ethical community, an ethical business, an ethical government, or an ethical society should be. Ethics really has to do with all these levels-acting ethically as individuals, creating ethical organizations and governments, and making our society as a whole ethical in the way it treats everyone.

What is Ethics?

Simply stated, ethics refers to standards of behavior that tell us how human beings ought to act in the many situations in which they find themselves-as friends, parents, children, citizens, businesspeople, teachers, professionals, and so on.

It is helpful to identify what ethics is NOT:

Ethics is not the same as feelings. Feelings provide important information for our ethical choices. Some people have highly developed habits that make them feel bad when they do something wrong, but many people feel good even though they are doing something wrong. And often our feelings will tell us it is uncomfortable to do the right thing if it is hard.

Ethics is not religion. Many people are not religious, but ethics applies to everyone. Most religions do advocate high ethical standards but sometimes do not address all the types of problems we face.

Ethics is not following the law. A good system of law does incorporate many ethical standards, but law can deviate from what is ethical. Law can become ethically corrupt, as some totalitarian regimes have made it. Law can be a function of power alone and designed to serve the interests of narrow groups. Law may have a difficult time designing or enforcing standards in some important areas, and may be slow to address new problems.

Ethics is not following culturally accepted norms. Some cultures are quite ethical, but others become corrupt -or blind to certain ethical concerns (as the United States was to slavery before the Civil War). "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is not a satisfactory ethical standard.

Ethics is not science. Social and natural science can provide important data to help us make better ethical choices. But science alone does not tell us what we ought to do. Science may provide an explanation for what humans are like. But ethics provides reasons for how humans ought to act. And just because something is scientifically or technologically possible, it may not be ethical to do it.

Why Identifying Ethical Standards is Hard

There are two fundamental problems in identifying the ethical standards we are to follow:

On what do we base our ethical standards?

How do those standards get applied to specific situations we face?

If our ethics are not based on feelings, religion, law, accepted social practice, or science, what are they based on? Many philosophers and ethicists have helped us answer this critical question. They have suggested at least five different sources of ethical standards we should use.

Five Sources of Ethical Standards

The Utilitarian Approach    
Some ethicists emphasize that the ethical action is the one that provides the most good or does the least harm, or, to put it another way, produces the greatest balance of good over harm. The ethical corporate action, then, is the one that produces the greatest good and does the least harm for all who are affected-customers, employees, shareholders, the community, and the environment. Ethical warfare balances the good achieved in ending terrorism with the harm done to all parties through death, injuries, and destruction. The utilitarian approach deals with consequences; it tries both to increase the good done and to reduce the harm done.

The Rights Approach    
Other philosophers and ethicists suggest that the ethical action is the one that best protects and respects the moral rights of those affected. This approach starts from the belief that humans have a dignity based on their human nature per se or on their ability to choose freely what they do with their lives. On the basis of such dignity, they have a right to be treated as ends and not merely as means to other ends. The list of moral rights -including the rights to make one's own choices about what kind of life to lead, to be told the truth, not to be injured, to a degree of privacy, and so on-is widely debated; some now argue that non-humans have rights, too. Also, it is often said that rights imply duties-in particular, the duty to respect others' rights.

The Fairness or Justice Approach    
Aristotle and other Greek philosophers have contributed the idea that all equals should be treated equally. Today we use this idea to say that ethical actions treat all human beings equally-or if unequally, then fairly based on some standard that is defensible. We pay people more based on their harder work or the greater amount that they contribute to an organization, and say that is fair. But there is a debate over CEO salaries that are hundreds of times larger than the pay of others; many ask whether the huge disparity is based on a defensible standard or whether it is the result of an imbalance of power and hence is unfair.

The Common Good Approach    
The Greek philosophers have also contributed the notion that life in community is a good in itself and our actions should contribute to that life. This approach suggests that the interlocking relationships of society are the basis of ethical reasoning and that respect and compassion for all others-especially the vulnerable-are requirements of such reasoning. This approach also calls attention to the common conditions that are important to the welfare of everyone. This may be a system of laws, effective police and fire departments, health care, a public educational system, or even public recreational areas.

The Virtue Approach    
A very ancient approach to ethics is that ethical actions ought to be consistent with certain ideal virtues that provide for the full development of our humanity. These virtues are dispositions and habits that enable us to act according to the highest potential of our character and on behalf of values like truth and beauty. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, tolerance, love, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues. Virtue ethics asks of any action, "What kind of person will I become if I do this?" or "Is this action consistent with my acting at my best?"

Putting the Approaches Together

Each of the approaches helps us determine what standards of behavior can be considered ethical. There are still problems to be solved, however.

The first problem is that we may not agree on the content of some of these specific approaches. We may not all agree to the same set of human and civil rights.

We may not agree on what constitutes the common good. We may not even agree on what is a good and what is a harm.

The second problem is that the different approaches may not all answer the question "What is ethical?" in the same way. Nonetheless, each approach gives us important information with which to determine what is ethical in a particular circumstance. And much more often than not, the different approaches do lead to similar answers.

Making Decisions

Making good ethical decisions requires a trained sensitivity to ethical issues and a practiced method for exploring the ethical aspects of a decision and weighing the considerations that should impact our choice of a course of action. Having a method for ethical decision making is absolutely essential. When practiced regularly, the method becomes so familiar that we work through it automatically without consulting the specific steps.

The more novel and difficult the ethical choice we face, the more we need to rely on discussion and dialogue with others about the dilemma. Only by careful exploration of the problem, aided by the insights and different perspectives of others, can we make good ethical choices in such situations.

We have found the following framework for ethical decision making a useful method for exploring ethical dilemmas and identifying ethical courses of action.

 Recognize an Ethical Issue

Could this decision or situation be damaging to someone or to some group? Does this decision involve a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two "goods" or between two "bads"?

Is this issue about more than what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?

Get the Facts

What are the relevant facts of the case? What facts are not known? Can I learn more about the situation? Do I know enough to make a decision?

What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome? Are some concerns more important? Why?

What are the options for acting? Have all the relevant persons and groups been consulted? Have I identified creative options?

Evaluate Alternative Actions

Evaluate the options by asking the following questions:

Which option will produce the most good and do the least harm? (The Utilitarian Approach)

Which option best respects the rights of all who have a stake? (The Rights Approach)

Which option treats people equally or proportionately? (The Justice Approach)

Which option best serves the community as a whole, not just some members?     
(The Common Good Approach)

Which option leads me to act as the sort of person I want to be? (The Virtue Approach)

Make a Decision and Test It

Considering all these approaches, which option best addresses the situation?

If I told someone I respect-or told a television audience-which option I have chosen, what would they say?

Act and Reflect on the Outcome

How can my decision be implemented with the greatest care and attention to the concerns of all stakeholders?

How did my decision turn out and what have I learned from this specific situation?

APPENDIX B

CODES OF CAMPAIGN CONDUCT

AAPC Code of Professional Ethics

As a member of the American Association of Political Consultants, I believe there are certain standards of practice which I must maintain. I, therefore, pledge to adhere to the following Code of Professional Ethics:

1. I will not indulge in any activity which would corrupt or degrade the practice of political consulting.

2. I will treat my colleagues and clients with respect and never intentionally injure their professional or personal reputations.

3. I will respect the confidence of my clients and not reveal confidential or privileged information obtained during our professional relationship.

4. I will use no appeal to voters which is based on racism, sexism, religious intolerance or any form of unlawful discrimination and will condemn those who use such practices. In turn, I will work for equal voting rights and privileges for all citizens.

5. I will refrain from false or misleading attacks on an opponent or member of his or her family and will do everything in my power to prevent others from using such tactics. 6. I will document accurately and fully any criticism of an opponent or his or her record.

7. I will be honest in my relationship with the news media and candidly answer questions when I have the authority to do so.

8. I will use any funds I receive from my clients, or on behalf of my clients, only for those purposes invoiced in writing.

9. I will not support any individual or organization which resorts to practices forbidden by this code.

_________________________________ Signature

_________________________________ Date

Michigan Republican Party Campaign Code of Conduct

Every candidate for public office has an obligation to observe and uphold certain basic principles of decency, honesty and fair play. In order to demonstrate the commitment of the Republican Party to these principles, and in the spirit of President Reagan’s famous 11th Commandment “Thou shalt not speak ill of fellow Republicans”, this Code of Conduct is set forth for all candidates seeking the Republican nomination for federal, state, and local elective office in the State of Michigan. This Code of Conduct shall also apply to the chair of a political committee in support or opposition to a question of public policy.

I will conduct my campaign openly and publicly, and limit charges against my opponent* to legitimate challenges regarding his or her opinions, record, qualifications, experience, conduct, and past positions held.

I will at all times tell the truth, with documentation from legitimate, verifiable sources for any charges I make against my opponent.

I will not use or condone any misrepresentations, distortions, malicious untruths, unfounded accusations or innuendos about my opponent or my opponent’s family.

I will neither use nor permit any appeal to bigotry based on a candidate’s race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion or national origin.

I will not undertake or condone any dishonest or unethical practice that tends to corrupt or undermine our American system of free elections or that hampers or prevents the full and free expression of the will of the voters.

I will defend and uphold the right of every qualified and duly registered Michigan voter to full and equal participation in the electoral process.

I will immediately and publicly repudiate any use by others of methods and tactics that I have pledged not to use or condone. I will do everything possible to ensure that those supporting my candidacy adhere to the principles outlined in this Code, and I shall dismiss any subordinate who violates any provision of this Code or the laws governing elections.

If I am not successful in my candidacy, I will not actively, publicly, or financially do anything that in any way will jeopardize the candidacy of the Republican nominee.

I will participate in unity events. I will endorse and support the ticket.

I will at all times adhere to both the letter and spirit of the law and this Code of Conduct.

I, the undersigned, do hereby accept the Michigan Republican Party Campaign Code of Conduct and agree to adhere to its principles and conduct my campaign accordingly.

___________________         ________________

Signature                            Date

_____________________________________

Office Sought or Name of Political Committee

INSTITUTE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

PLEDGE OF FAIR CAMPAIGN PRACTICES

There are basic principles of honesty, fairness, responsibility and respect to which every candidate for public office should adhere in order to worthy of the public office that that candidate seeks. Candidates who fall short of adhering to such principles alienate the public from the electoral process and erode the public’s trust and confidence in the offices that those candidates seek. THEREFORE, as a candidate for public office, I pledge to conform my campaign to the following principles

1. General. My campaign for public office will adhere to principles of honesty, fairness, responsibility and respect. My campaign communications will present only fair, relevant and truthful information to the voters for their consideration of my candidacy and those of my opponents.

2. Fairness. The timing of my communications will be such that my opponents will have a meaningful opportunity to respond to any claims I make concerning their positions or qualifications to hold office. I will not take advantage of any position I hold in the public, private or nonprofit sectors to pressure people to support my candidacy with either campaign contributions or other election help.

3. Relevance. Irrelevant information includes appeals to prejudices based on race, sex, sexual preferences, religion, national origin, physical health status, or age, as well as information concerning the candidate’s family.

4. Truthfulness. I will present my positions and record candidly and forthrightly, so that the voters can judge my candidacy for office. I will document all assertions my campaign makes in campaign communications.

5. Responsibility. I support full participation the electoral process and will take no action to discourage such participation. I will immediately and publicly repudiate those who take actions that either help my candidacy or hurt my opponents’ candidacy which are inconsistent with this pledge of campaign conduct.

6. Respect. I will treat my opponents with courtesy and civility, even when we disagree about what is best for voters served by the office I seek.

___________________ ___________________

Candidate’s Signature              Date

(http://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/resources__ILG_Pledge_of_Fair_Campaign_Practices.pdf)

APPENDIX C

A NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF ETHICAL QUESTIONS

YOU MIGHT FACE ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

(From the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at SCU.EDU/Ethics)

Ethical Dilemmas Involving Honesty

Are you truthful about your record, background, and accomplishments?

Are you truthful about your opponent's record, background, accomplishments, or malfeasance?

Do you ensure that campaign staff, consultants, surrogates, or others speaking on your behalf are always truthful?

Do you imply endorsements where none have been given?

Do you Photoshop images to enhance messages that are not entirely truthful?

Are you honest about what you can and will do once in office?

Do you deceive the public by using push polling to deliver campaign messages under the guise of legitimate research?

Are you honest about the signatures you have gathered?

Do you report truthfully on all campaign reports?

Are you honest about your relationships with Independent Expenditure Groups?

Are your answers on political questionnaires consistent?

Ethical Dilemmas Involving Fairness

Even if an allegation against an opponent is true, is it fair under the circumstances. For example did the alleged event occur in the distant past?

Are you distorting your opponent's voting record by taking a vote out of context? For example, does your opponent have a favorable record on an issue, but voted for a necessary appropriation bill that included a section not favorable on that issue?

Are negative allegations against your opponent relevant to the office being sought? For example, do allegations against the opponent's family further the political debate or only serve to demean the opponent in the public's view?

Do you buy up the majority of the available airtime, thus drowning out the voices of your opponents?

Do you hire more political consultants than necessary thus ensuring that they cannot work for your opponent?

When making a negative comment about your opponent, do you give your opponent reasonable time to respond, or do you hold information back, planning for an "October surprise?"

If you are already an officeholder, do you use public resources not available to your opponent? For example, do you use government staff, offices, supplies and/or equipment for political purposes?

As an office holder do you use governmental meetings as an opportunity to campaign?

Do you encourage or condone the destruction of your opponent's campaign materials by staff and/or volunteers?

Do you interfere with the voting process by discouraging voter turnout?

Ethical Dilemmas Involving Transparency

Do you make all of your responses to special interest questionnaires publicly available?

Do you disclose all of your donors in compliance with campaign finance regulations?

Do you disclose financial interests?

Do you provide your tax returns when asked?

Do you disclose promises made to donors and supporters?

Ethical Dilemmas Involving Substance

Have you developed policy positions on the issues facing the electorate?

Do you provide the public with access to all of your policy positions?

Do you honor requests to debate?

Do your allegations about your opponents serve to educate the public about your differences or do they merely serve to attack your opponent?

Are your political advertisements mere fluff pieces or do they actual inform the voters about your stance on the issues?

Do you conduct political town hall meetings so your views can be made known?

Do you stand open to questions from your future constituents?

Do you respond to emails and other correspondence from voters?

Do you answer questions from the press and participate in editorial boards?

Ethical Dilemmas Involving Independence

Do you pre-commit yourself by promising that you will take positions on legislation prior to having the benefit of public hearings and proper governmental deliberation? For example, do you make promises in your responses to campaign questionnaires that bind you to a certain course of action once elected? Do you sign pledges?

Do you make promises to donors in exchange for contributions?

Do you make promises to supporters in exchange for endorsements?

Do you exercise your own judgment when devising policy or do you feel you must be in lockstep with your party in order to get party support?

Do you take donations from a group that has business before you if you are an incumbent or will likely have business before you should you get elected? For example, if you are running for a seat on the city council, do you take money from developers?

Ethical Dilemmas Involving Campaign Contributions

As campaign finance laws are designed to eliminate corruption and undue influence, do you follow all pertinent campaign finance laws and regulations?

If you are given funds in excess of contribution limits, do you return them or do you work with the donor to circumvent the campaign finance rules? For example, do you advise the donor to divide up the funds among family members who then donate to you?

Do you directly, or indirectly, coordinate with independent groups campaigning on your behalf?

Do you send former political staffers to work on independent expenditure committees?

If you are an incumbent do you seek contributions from government staff?

If you are in business, do you seek contributions for your political campaign from your employees?

(https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/government-ethics/resources/unavoidable-ethical-dilemmas-for-candidates/)

APPENDIX D

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Campaign Legal Center

http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org

Center on Civility & Democratic Engagement

https://gspp.berkeley.edu/centers/ccde

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

https://www.citizensforethics.org

Federal Elections Commission

https://www.fec.gov/

Flack Check

http://flackcheck.org

Maplight

https://maplight.org

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/