This Week in Political Communication Ethics
We’re three weeks away from a critical midterm election and ethical campaign questions abound. We have launched a weekly roundup of what we’re looking at, what we’re looking for, and what questions it all raises. The second week is below.
Every week we flag what we’re reading, what questions those readings raise, and what we’re watching for. What do you think? What are your answers? What should we be looking for or asking? Drop us a line here or on Twitter.
What We’re Reading
The New York Times As he runs in the G.O.P. primary for Georgia Senate, Herschel Walker says he wants a ban on abortion with no exceptions
Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker is expressing a different position on abortion during the general election than he did in the primary. In May, The New York Times reported his belief in banning abortion with no exceptions, a position he recently said he disagrees with. Read more here. CNN also has video clips of Walker supporting and opposing exceptions in an abortion ban. Watch it here.
The Washington Post On Kari Lake’s campaign for Arizona governor, the mic is always hot
G.O.P candidate for Governor of Arizona, Kari Lake has become a phenomenon. Lake recently said she would accept the election results when she wins, but staying quiet what she would do if she loses. Read more here.Bloomberg Trump Spent 91 Cents to Raise Each Dollar as Troubles Mounted
The former President is spending a lot of campaign money he’s raising on overhead and lawyers rather than candidates and campaigns. Read more here.
What we’re asking
Should candidates express the same policy opinions during primaries and general elections? Are statements like Walker’s expected and acceptable?
In addition to candidates affirming they will accept the will of the voters, do elected officials have a responsibility to call out candidates in their party for not promising to accept election results?
What are the ethics telling donors where their money goes?
What we’re looking at: Campaign Ads
An ad being run by former Maine governor Paul LePage, who is seeking another term, labels asylum seekers as illegal immigrants. You can watch the ad here. The claim in the ad is incorrect, and LePage has expressed several different positions on immigration, according to Maine Public Radio. But refugees, asylum seekers, and illegal migration are different (you can read about the difference here). To what extent do candidates have an ethical responsibility to use accurate terms in their ads?
Marc Molinaro, candidate for New York’s 19th district, has said he generally opposes a ban on abortion post 17 weeks, but not a nationwide one unlike this ad here states. What ethical obligation do candidates have when releasing attack ads to accurately represent the other side's stance?
What we’re asking
Is it ethical to exaggerate or misrepresent an opponent's position?
Do candidates have an ethical responsibility to hold consistent positions throughout the campaign, and give the same basic answer to questions regardless of the audience?