Speaker: Betsy Rhodes, State Coordinator, Ohio Project on Campaign Conduct

Moderator: David C. Smith, President, Council for Ethics in Economics

Location: Council for Ethics in Economics conference room

David C. Smith, Moderator, opened the Conversation by asking the question, "Can political campaigns be ‘cleaned up’"? The Ohio Project on Campaign Conduct is trying and they want your help.

The Ohio Project on Campaign Conduct is part of a national effort sponsored by the Institute for Global Ethics and is funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts in Philadelphia. Pew has funded a pilot project to be conducted in two states. In each state a code of conduct will be created with the help of the candidates. An aggressive public awareness campaign will also be launched to encourage voters to hold candidates to the codes—especially right before the election when campaigns can become the ugliest. The ideas for this project evolved from the experience in the state of Maine. The Maine Code of Election Ethics was created in 1996 in partnership with the Margaret Chase Smith Center for Public Policy at the University of Maine and the Margaret Chase Smith Library in Skowegan, Maine. The code was endorsed by all ten of the state’s candidates for federal office on the November ballot. Unlike campaign codes that have been tried in other states, the Maine code directly involved the candidates who helped to craft the code before signing it.

I shall emphasize my views, beliefs, and experiences. I am committed to an open and public discussion of issues and to presenting my record with sincerity and frankness. I shall not use or agree to let third parties use subtle deceptions, half-truths, falsifications, or such practices as push polling. (See note 1.) If such practices are used by third parties without my approval, I shall repudiate it immediately and publicly upon my knowledge of its occurrence. Factual claims made by my campaign will be supported by publicly available documents provided by my campaign office.

I shall avoid demeaning references to my opponent and demeaning visual images of my opponent. I shall respect my opponent. I shall not use or allow to be used personal attacks, innuendo, or stereotyping.

I shall ensure that my campaign staff and campaign supporters will observe these principles of fair campaign practices. I take full responsibility for all advertising created or used on my behalf by staff and supporters. 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 and without malice the record and policies of my opponent and his or her political party that merit such criticism. I will not condone or allow third party advertising which does not meet the principles contained in this document. If such practices are used by third parties without my approval, I shall repudiate it immediately and publicly upon my knowledge of its occurrence.

In the conduct of my candidacy, I shall show compassion at all times for my opponent. I shall remember that the campaign process is fundamental to representative democracy and that my behavior in the campaign affects the integrity of our society.

Ohio is the first state to be selected for this project and the second will be identified shortly. The aim of the project is to test the feasibility of a nationwide push for more ethical campaigning in the presidential election in 2000. This is a two-year project with Brad Rourke as National Project Director. He has worked on several campaigns and as a lobbyist. He has said, "We can’t be caught up in creating escalating regulations-it is a battle of wits with campaign operatives that we would lose. The modern practice of politics is in many ways the business of finding loopholes. By focusing on values, rather than on rules, we do more than circumvent this problem: We take away its foundation."

WHY OHIO? There are several factors that contributed to the decision to choose Ohio as one of the test sites. First, Ohio has always been a pivotal state in U.S. politics. This year, we expect some hotly contested races to take place when U.S. Senator John Glenn’s seat is left open and there is an open governor’s race. In addition, seats on the Apportionment Board will be affected by the upcoming state election (See Note 2). Second, Ohio has a diverse population from the rural to the urban areas. Third, the size is right—it’s not too big, but not too small. Fourth, Ohioans appear interested in bringing about a better quality election. This is evidenced by the organizations supporting this project: the League of Women Voters of Ohio Education Fund, the Kettering Foundation, Ohio Citizen Action, the Raymond C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron, the Citizens League of Greater Cleveland, and the Council for Ethics in Economics. That’s why the project is here.

The four elements of the Ohio Project are:

*  Code drafting. To invite all the candidates for a particular office to develop and sign a voluntary code of fair campaign practices.

*  Public Awareness. To remind voters of the candidates’ pledge during the early days of the race and to urge them to hold candidates accountable.

*  Paid media advertising about the code. To intensify those reminders during the final days of the election when the temptation to "go negative" is the strongest.

*  Evaluation. To assess post-election results and to prepare for a national effort in 2000.

I plan to work with the candidates for nine statewide offices and possibly the congressional races to help them establish a workable code of conduct for the campaign. We want them to develop a code that they will feel comfortable signing. Once a code has been constructed, we shall ask them all to sign on. The next step will be keeping the resulting "Ohio Code" in the public eye throughout the election process-especially toward the end when the pressure to "go negative" is highest. We do not want to squelch political debate but enhance it by promoting issue oriented, positive campaigns.

Response: Third parties are persons outside the campaign such as voters, organizations, etc.

Response: If a candidate has participated in the drafting process but does not want to sign the new code, we hope the public will encourage him/her to agree with the code by signing it.

Response: You can say what you think is wrong without attacking the other person.

Response: There was no formal follow-up. However, we do know that 1) the last part of the campaign became negative in spite of the code signing and 2) more people voted.

Response: No, we do not plan to be scorekeepers. We anticipate the media will report on what is happening.

Comment: If a score card is not kept, then there needs to be some way to let candidates know what is considered by the public to be negative campaign conduct.

Comment: Why not ask the public to identify examples of negative campaigning? Then select five examples and make a video tape. It could be given to the candidates saying—Here are five examples of negative campaigning (attack ads, etc.) that the public considers over the edge.

Response: This is a good question that needs to be looked into.

Comment: Perhaps there is need for a coordinating point with a central base of information involving each campaign that could be used by the media, other organizations, the public, etc.

From 1993 to 1997 Betsy Rhodes was the assistant director of the Ohio Women’s Policy and Research Commission, a bipartisan state commission designed to identify barriers to women’s equality and to work to eliminate them. Before moving to Columbus in 1992, she was a legislative aide for The Humane Society of the United States in Washington, D.C. She is a graduate of Connecticut College with a double major in political science and sociology.

As an international, membership-based think tank, the Institute for Global Ethics focuses on ethical activities in education, the corporate sector, and public policy. The Institute plans to act as a resource center if the campaign conduct project continues. According to Rushworth M. Kidder, Institute President, " This project grows out of our conviction that ethics consists of ‘obedience to the unenforceable.’" (See Note 3.)

1. A "push poll" is a telemarketing technique in which telephone calls are used to canvass potential voters, feeding them false or misleading "information" about a candidate under the pretense of taking a poll to see how this "information" affects voter preferences. In fact, the intent is not to measure public opinion but to manipulate it—to "push" voters away from one candidate and toward the opposing candidate. Such polls defame selected candidates by spreading false or misleading information about them. The intent is to disseminate campaign propaganda under the guise of conducting a legitimate public opinion poll. Definition by the Association for Public Opinion Research—Internet address: http//www.aapor.org/ethics/pushpoll.shtml

2. The Apportionment Board in Ohio draws up the boundaries of the legislative districts every ten years. Persons in the positions of governor, secretary of state and auditor are members of the Board and have considerable impact on the redistricting. Persons chosen in the next election for these positions will be on the Apportionment Board for its next meeting in the year 2000 after the census is taken and the new population figures are known.

3. "Obedience to the unenforceable" is part of a speech made by the Right Honorable Lord Moulton at the Authors’ Club in London some years before his death in 1921. In his talk he examines three great domains of human action. "First comes the domain of Positive Law, where our actions are prescribed by laws binding upon us which must be obeyed. Next comes the domain of Free Choice, which includes all those actions as to which we claim and enjoy complete freedom. But between these two there is a third large and important domain in which there rules neither Positive Law nor Absolute Freedom. In that domain there is no law which inexorably determines our course of action...it is the domain of Obedience to the Unenforceable. The obedience is the obedience of a man to that which he cannot be forced to obey. He is the enforcer of the law upon himself." (Moulton, John Fletcher. "Law and Manners," The Atlantic Monthly, (July 1924). 1-5.)

- Highlights is prepared by Celianna Taylor.

Council for Ethics in Economics
125 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215-3605 U.S.A.
(614) 221-8661
FAX: (614) 221-8707

Website designed and maintained by CINErgy Media Communication.
cinergy@cinecomm.com