Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout22052 8-04 campaign ethics (2)Everyday Ethics for Local Officials The Why’s and How’s of Campaign Ethics Question: I am a candidate for re-election to my council seat this November. One of my challengers is known for running negative campaigns (she has run unsuccessfully for council before). Do you have advice on how I can maintain my personal commitment to run a positive campaign while not letting my opponent get the upper hand? Answer: Kudos to you for your concern about the tone of your upcoming campaign. Before we analyze the particulars of your dilemma, let’s be clear about the standards to which we should aspire in campaigns. Campaigns and Candidates at Their Best A yardstick for measuring campaigns by is whether their tactics are designed to draw voters into the process and to the candidate’s candidacy. This includes: Asking voters to support a candidate based on substantive positions on the policy issues facing the community. Being honest about the candidate’s views and what the candidate will do and the kinds of decisions a candidate will make should you be elected or re-elected. Using campaign methods that meaningfully engage the public about the policy issues facing the community. Treating one’s fellow candidates with honesty and respect, documenting any claims made about them and confining any criticisms to issues that are relevant to the office being sought. On the other hand, some of the kinds of campaign techniques that push people away from the electoral process include: Personal attacks (name-calling, character assassination, innuendo, and stereotyping) and Mischaracterizing of others’ positions for political advantage (for example, by using half-truths or twisting the facts to create a false impression). And, of course, attacks over ethics issues can constitute just such a personal attack. In this regard, Hollister Mayor Tony Bruscia notes that it is important for candidates to decry the act, not the candidate. For example, if one catches one’s opponent making an untruthful statement, criticize the statement instead of calling your opponent a liar. (For another example, see sidebar at ___ discussing whether a violation of campaign laws makes a candidate “unethical”). Why do we say that such techniques “push people away from the process?” In a 2002 survey, a whopping 82 percent of those responding thought that attack-type campaigning makes people less likely to vote. Similar percentages characterized such attack-oriented campaigning as “unethical” (86 percent) and expressed the view that such techniques produce less trustworthy leaders (76 percent). The Distinction Between Criticism and Unfair Attacks This does not mean that criticizing one’s opponent is inconsistent with running a clean campaign. Voters want and need information to help them decide which candidate to support. In fact, voters view the purpose of a campaign is to provide them with information to help them make a decision. Contrasting one’s positions and qualifications against those of others in the field satisfies that need. Moreover, keep in mind that the prevailing political wisdom is that, to run against an incumbent, a challenger has to criticize the incumbent. The issue is whether any criticisms your opponent makes of you and your record are fair, relevant and truthful. Here is what one survey suggested are fair and relevant criticisms of one’s opponent: An opponent’s voting record (68 percent) Criticizing a candidate for talking one way and voting another (71 percent) An opponent’s business practices (53 percent) Criticizing an opponent for accepting contributions from special interest groups (57 percent) Criticizing an opponent for not paying taxes on time (61 percent) The following are examples of unfair and irrelevant criticisms: Criticizing the actions of an opponent’s family (89 percent) Past troubles such as alcoholism or marijuana use (69 percent) Marital infidelity (57 percent) Past personal financial problems (81 percent) Financing your campaign yourself (76 percent) Tone and timing matter too. A criticism made when there is no time to respond is unfair. For this reason, it can be useful for codes of campaign conduct code to include a pledge by candidates to provide their opponents a meaningful opportunity to respond to claims made about a candidate’s qualifications or positions (see sample campaign conduct pledge in sidebar at ____). The Best Defense Is a Good Offense Whether or not one anticipates a negative campaign, it may be worthwhile for all candidates to work together to create an environment in which ethical campaigning is expected. Ways to accomplish this include a series of candidate forums in which the goal of an ethical campaign is discussed and then follow-up conversations about whether the candidates did indeed walk the talk. The community and media can also be constructively engaged in holding candidates accountable for abiding by their commitment to conduct ethical campaigns. In California, each candidate is offered the opportunity to sign a “code of campaign practices” defined by state law. Although the statutory version of the code is arguably in need of updating to reflect what voters truly react adversely to in campaign practices, the statutory code is at least a starting point (a copy is available at www.ILSG.org/trust). Whether a candidate has signed the code is a matter of public record. A proposed updated version of the code (called a pledge, to avoid confusion with the statutory version) is presented in the sidebar at right/left. Some community groups promote such voluntary agreements relating to campaign conduct as a way of encouraging campaigns that draw voters into the process. Let us know what you think of this proposed pledge by emailing us at ILSG@cacities.org. Note that 78 percent of a sample of California voters indicated that they would be favorably influenced in favor of candidates that pledge to adhere to ethical campaign practices. Responding to Negative Attacks Having already made the case for a campaign based on truthful, relevant and fair information can be helpful to inoculate your campaign against the effects of unfair negative attacks. The goal is to have such attacks look conspicuously discordant from the fair and informative tone that you are setting with your own campaign. If you are the victim of a negative attack, analyze what you consider to be an attack piece in light of what voters want: fair, truthful and relevant. Is it fair? Is this an example of a half-truth that leaves a false impression? Is the timing suspect, leaving no time for you to meaningfully respond? Is it truthful? What documentation do you have to show that it is not truthful? Is this an example of a half-truth or twisting facts to create a false impression? If so, call the attacker on the technique and use this as an opportunity to get the whole truth before the voters. Is the subject of the attack relevant to your ability to hold the office for which you are running? Why or why not? Then do what you can to get the message out on why the attack is untruthful, irrelevant and unfair. Whatever you do, resist the urge to respond in kind with a counterattack of your own. You run the risk that the counterattack will backfire and you leave the original attack unanswered on the merits. But Does Negative Campaigning Work? Some people steadfastly assert negative, attack-style campaigning works. Ethicist Michael Josephson is fond of noting that when one fights fire with fire, all one is left with is the ashes of one’s own integrity—an apt observation to be sure. But let’s examine the empirical basis for the proposition that indeed negative campaigning works. Some questions to ask as you reflect on your observations of campaigns: Did the campaign fit the definition of a negative campaign used in this article, that is, personal attacks on candidates when such attacks were unfair, untruthful and irrelevant? Were the voters truly given a choice in the campaign? Put another way, did all the credible candidates emphasize unfair, untruthful and irrelevant information in their campaigns, such that the voters really didn’t have a choice but to support one of them? Did the attack-style campaigning work because the voters were influenced by it or because the subject of the attack didn’t know how to respond effectively? Were there weaknesses in the subject-candidate’s messages and campaign that contributed to the candidate’s defeat (see sidebar at ___ “A Good Campaign Infrastructure Helps”). The reason these questions and others are worth thinking critically about is that research indicates that it is not clear that negative attack campaigning actually works. A 1998 study, for example, found that nearly half of the studies on political advertising show that positive advertising is more persuasive than negative advertising. Nearly a third of the studies found that negative advertising backfires. In fact, a major premise of UC Berkeley’s Center for Campaign Leadership’s work with political consultants is that one can campaign ethically and win. This premise is supported by a number of research papers that one can access from the Center’s website: http://campaigns.berkeley.edu (click on “research”). Why We All Have a Stake in Clean Campaigning Ethical campaigns promote support for government. Messages that denigrate government and those who serve in government reinforce negative public perceptions about government - perceptions that do not disappear once one goes from candidate to elected official. Conversely, campaign strategies that engage the public in meaningful debate and dialogue about community issues (for example, precinct walking, debates and town hall meetings), educate the community about the issues of the day. They also draw the public into the process, which strengthens our democratic institutions and one’s ability to lead once elected. Pledge of Fair Campaign Practices [sidebar] Note: this is a proposed update and expansion of the Code of Fair Campaign Practices presently distributed by elections officials for candidates to sign. Consider signing both the existing statutory code and proposing that candidates go one step further and commit to the following pledge or a variation tailored to your community’s needs. Note that 78 percent of those surveyed indicated that they would be favorably influenced in favor of candidates that pledge to adhere to ethical 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: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 A Good Campaign Infrastructure Helps [sidebar] The Institute for Local Self Government has published a guide on campaigning for local office called Campaigning Effectively for Local Office: Good People Can Finish First. The guide is available without charge in electronic form from the Institute’s website: www.ILSG.org. Hardcopy versions are available for a modest fee; proceeds from hardcopy sales support the Institute’s efforts in the ethics area. Does a Violation of Campaign Laws Equate to an Ethical Lapse? [sidebar] (Excerpt from Campaigning Effectively for Local Office: Good People Can Finish First, in a section on campaign law written by Karen Getman, Remcho, Johansen and Purcell and former Chair, Fair Political Practices Commission). Strictly speaking, the answer is not always. Candidates may inadvertently violate the law, even if they have the best of intentions, simply because there are so many rules that govern running for office. The best a candidate can pledge is to educate him or herself on the legal requirements relating to campaign practices and disclosure and to quickly remedy any missteps in the compliance process. This being said, it is absolutely true that if something feels like an ethical violation, it is likely to be a legal violation. If your gut tells you something is wrong with what you are contemplating, pay heed – you may wind up with a losing campaign and a costly legal battle to defend yourself against an enforcement action. Moreover, if you catch your opponent in a technical violation of the campaign laws, use the same test you would for any campaign communication before deciding to make an issue of it in the campaign. Is the information you would distribute about the violation fair, relevant and truthful? Publicizing information that an enforcement agency is “investigating” a violation may mislead the public into believing prematurely that a violation has indeed occurred. Moreover, if the violation is a hyper-technical violation, is it truly relevant to and a reflection of your opponent’s commitment to following the law? Put another way, could you see yourself as being unaware of the law that your opponent violated? If so, is this just an opportunity to say “gotcha?” Everyone should carefully and diligently follow the campaign laws and some violations do indeed represent serious breaches of the important principles that the laws were designed to uphold. However, the public becomes somewhat anesthetized to the significance of such violations if every one, no matter how technical or minor, is portrayed as the equivalent of a local Watergate. Help the public know how to evaluate the significance of such violations by reserving your fire for material violations of the law—the Fair Political Practices Commission will take care of the rest.