The Week in Political Communication Ethics - Oct. 26, 2022

With two weeks to go until voting ends in a critical midterm election, here is a roundup of what we’re looking at, what we’re looking for, and what questions it all raises. This week we’re looking at who pays for campaigns and political ads, and at fundraising emails.

What We’re Reading - Who’s Paying for Campaigns?

Follow the money is usually good advice for voters. But what if the money doesn’t want to be found? Does it matter if voters don’t care who pays for campaigns or ads?

Prof. Nikki Usher in the Los Angeles Times Op-Ed: Misleading political TV ads are filling up California’s ‘news deserts’
“…what’s even more troubling than the amounts of money spent is that information disorder and political polarization make it harder than ever to discern facts from baseless claims or misinformation.”

National Public Radio Dark money groups have spent nearly $1 billion so far to boost GOP Senate candidates
”More than $1.6 billion has been spent or booked on TV ads in a dozen Senate races, with $3 out of every $4 being spent in six states — Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Wisconsin, Nevada and Ohio, according to an NPR analysis of data provided by the ad-tracking firm AdImpact.

Most of that money is coming from dark money outside groups with little-to-no donor transparency…”

The New York Times Democrats Decried Dark Money. Then They Won With It in 2020
”The findings reveal the growth and ascendancy of a shadow political infrastructure that is reshaping American politics, as megadonors to these nonprofits take advantage of loose disclosure laws to make multimillion-dollar outlays in total secrecy. Some good-government activists worry that the exploding role of undisclosed cash threatens to accelerate the erosion of trust in the country’s political system.” 

What We’re Asking

Would knowing who was paying for campaigns and ads change how voters made up their minds? Would it make a difference on election day?

Should the government require full disclosure of all donors to campaigns and groups trying to get voters to cast one ballot or another, even if it might not change the outcome of an election?

Is transparency a democratic good, regardless of its impact?

What We’re Reading: Fundraising Emails

Fear and anger raise money and turn out votes. They can also undermine our democracy. Campaigns should be able to find ways to make the truth click bait.

Tim Miller in The New York Times The Most Toxic Politicians Are Dragging Us to Hell With Emails and Texts
“…overall, it’s a race to the bottom to inflame a party’s own voters with the most intensity and frequency.”

Blue Tent The Two Worst Email Fundraising Vendors—and the Democratic Groups and Candidates That Use Them
”As Democratic donors know too well, each day brings a deluge of misleading, manipulative or outright false email appeals from Democratic candidates and institutions.”

Mike Nellis in Campaigns and Elections Why Scammy Fundraising Practices Should Concern Both Sides
”Digital fundraising without ethics and character is theft, plain and simple. We shouldn’t be scamming people with deceptive tactics or scaring seniors into unknowingly giving away their rent and grocery money to political campaign…”

What We’re Asking

Should there be standards for campaign emails? If so, who would set and enforce them?

Can campaigns raise as much money (or more) and turnout as many votes (or more) using less awful email tactics?

What do you think? What should be looking for?
Let us know here or on Twitter.

The Week in Political Communication Ethics - Oct 19, 2022

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

1. 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.

2. 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. 

3. 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

1. Should candidates express the same policy opinions during primaries and general elections? Are statements like Walker’s expected and acceptable?

2. 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?

3. What are the ethics telling donors where their money goes?

What we’re looking at: Campaign Ads

1. 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?

2. 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

1. Is it ethical to exaggerate or misrepresent an opponent's position? 

2. 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?

What do you think? What should be looking for?
Let us know here or on Twitter.

The Week in Political Communication Ethics Oct 13, 2022

Every week we will flag what we’re reading, what questions those readings raise, and what we’re watching. What do you think? What are your answers? What should be looking for and asking? Drop us a line here or on Twitter.

What We’re Reading and Asking

IPSOS: A substantial minority of Americans think election fraud could be the reason why their party doesn’t win control of Congress

• 1 in 4 Democrats and 4 in 10 Republicans plan to blame election fraud if their party candidate does not win. Read more here.

• Question: Do candidates have an ethical responsibility to reaffirm their confidence in the integrity of American elections and that they will accept the results of the election, win or lose?

Bulwark: The question Ted Cruz can’t answer

• During a rally with Sen Candidate Blake Masters and Kari Lake, Sen. Ted Cruz refused to answer whether the 2020 election results in Arizona were legitimate. Read more here.

• Question: Do elected officials have an ethical responsibility to say the 2020 election was fair and that President Biden won fair and square?

Axios: Democrats' swing-state local news ploy

• Writers for a DC based media operation run by Democratic operatives are behind several local news outlets around the country, mainly in swing states, that are producing mostly democratic praise. Read more here.

• Question: What are the ethics of veiled partisan media, versus overtly partisan or non-partisan media?

What We’re Looking At: Debates

• What are the ethics of personal attacks during debates? How should politicians respond?

• Do moderators have an ethical obligation to call out election denying candidates?

• Do candidates have an ethical obligation to commit to accepting the results of their election?

What do you think? What should be looking for?
Let us know here or on Twitter.

Campaign Ethics Check Up

Check One:       Does everyone know the larger point of the campaign?

Check Two:      Does everyone know your ethical standards and expectations?

Check Three:   Does everyone know where the lines are?

You can’t predict every challenge you will face in a political campaign. For example, “what if there’s a global supply chain disruption and we can’t get paper?” isn’t something most candidates think about. But campaigns should expect to face ethical challenges. With just over four months to go until the general election, and with primaries well underway, now is a good time to revisit your campaign’s ethical standards.

The best campaigns set their ethical framework when they write their campaign plans and budgets. A campaign should firmly state where it stands as it plans where to go and how to get there. That’s the idea behind the Campaign Ethics Workbook.

Campaigns are made up of a lot of moving parts. There are venders for mail, fundraising, social media, TV and radio ad production and placement. There are field teams, communications teams, policy teams, volunteers, and of course the candidate. Many may be involved because they know and believe in the candidate, others because they support a political party, and others because they are professionals who believe these things and have bills to pay.

The best campaigns ensure everyone, from the newby volunteer phone-banker, to the email fundraising consultant, to the campaign manager have a clear understanding of what the campaign will – and will not – do to win.

Consultants get paid to win the next election or pass the next bill. But we must never mistake the immediate goal for the greater stakes.
-  Democratic strategist Oren Shur and Republican strategist Susan Del Percio in Campaigns & Elections 

You work on campaigns or run for office because you believe our world should, and can, be a better place. There is a point to what you are doing beyond November 8th. You might want to ensure everyone is treated and fairly and with dignity, that the climate crisis is existential and we must do everything possible to address it, or that no one should worry where their next meal is coming from. You probably believe in a few of these things, and more. These goals are why you are doing what you are doing.

In one sentence, why are you involved in politics? Why are you on this campaign or running for this office? For example, “to create a world in which everyone is treated fairly and in which the earth’s climate is not destroyed.” (Your sentence doesn’t need to be poetic or inspiring – it just needs to clearly state why you’re living on pizza and adrenaline for the next four months).

Check One:       Does everyone on your campaign know the larger point of the campaign?
Put it on posters, online, and on material for your field team. Everyone should keep a clear eye on the point of knocking on the next door, making the next call, raising the next dollar, and creating the next ad. It should be in your contracts with vendors and in creative briefs.

How you get where you want to go matters. Democracy is how we find solutions to shared problems. Democracy is how we get things done, and also how we do those things. The means and end of democracy are connected. Everyday, headlines remind us that rhetorical attacks on democratic institutions have physical consequences. And every day, politicians and pundits tell voters to hate, fear and even attack anyone who disagrees with them. How you make the case for your candidate matters.

It can be easy to lash out at your opponents in the heat of a campaign. A lot of campaigns also lash out at the press, their own staff, and the democratic institutions they are working so hard to be part of. Pointed and accurate attacks can be effective and important – but just lashing out rarely helps and often hurts.

Here’s a possible standard … what if you were the target of the communication? Would you think it was fair, truthful enough, captured the essence of the topic? Even if you didn’t like it, would you say it was above board?
- Jim Kessler  EVP Third Way, former campaign strategist, Five Questions about Ethics in Political Communication 

The best campaigns have a written set of guidelines or standards they follow. For example, when Pete Buttigieg ran for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination he had a “rules of the road” that everyone affiliated with the campaign was expected to follow. His campaign literally put it on t-shirts.

Not everyone followed all the rules all of the time (I don’t care how much you like the candidate or knocking on stranger’s doors, ‘joy’ just isn’t something campaigns have all the time). Nevertheless it was a public statement of “this is how this campaign approaches our work – this is how we treat our voters, our opponent, each other, and the process in which we are privileged to participate.”

Check Two: Does everyone affiliated with your campaign know your ethical standards and expectations?

Put those standards on t-shirts – and posters, yard signs, and social media.

A general statement of a platitude, followed by more aspirational statements, don’t always help on a late Thursday night right before a filing deadline or on a hot Sunday afternoon at a state fair. Without details and examples, the goals feel abstract and can easily be ignored.

The best campaigns offer examples of what they will, and will not do. No list is exhaustive, and you cannot anticipate everything (for example, a global pandemic in March, 2020 that turned a lot of typical campaign activities into potentially life threatening events). But a few examples can make the campaign’s ethical expectations clearer. Are there things your campaign will not say in emails, such as promising fake matches, automatically enrolling donors in monthly contributions, or engaging in absurd hyperbole?

Subject line from a Republican fundraising email in June, 2022

Negative ads can help voters see important differences between your campaign and your opponent, and can reveal information that may matter in the campaign, such as business dealings, active participation with hate groups, or past statements at odds with their current positions. But not all attacks are relevant or helpful. For example, is the candidate’s family out of bounds? How recent do actions or statement have to be in order to be relevant?

Your campaign might want to focus on whose money to take and whose to turn down, or whose endorsements to seek and whose to reject. You might decide you will not make promises you cannot keep (i.e. “pass single payer health care” – even you think it’s a good idea, one person can’t do it alone). Think about choices you may face, and the decision you will make when faced with those choices.

Check Three:   Do your staff, volunteers and venders know where the lines are?

Write down and share examples of what is in bounds and what is out of bounds. Make sure your staff, volunteers and venders know what you expect. Hire staff and venders with a history of winning with your values, and fire those who think they have to burn down the house in order to occupy it.

Your campaign will only get tougher. Your life will only get more stressful. Take a moment to make sure that you are sure what you are working toward, that everyone knows how they are expected to behave, and give examples of acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

For a more complete discussion of campaign ethics, check out the Project on Ethics in Political Communication’s Campaign Ethics Workbook.

 Now go knock on some doors.

The Ethics of Political Listening

“Practically all the attention has been paid to speaking, both in terms of the skills to be developed and the ways in which we should understand what enhancing ‘inclusion’ might mean (i.e. getting more people to speak). The argument here is that both democratic theory and democratic practice would be reinvigorated by attention to listening.”

-          Andrew Dobson, “Listening: The New Democratic Deficit” Political Studies 2012

Last week I joined 20 million other Americans in watching the first public hearing of the January 6 commission (officially the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol). I tuned in again earlier this week. And I will tune in for the rest of the month. I watched with social media turned off. I didn’t yell at or applaud the speakers. I tried not to smugly smile to myself (not always successfully). Instead I listened to learn.

As Andrew Dobson (whose quote opens this piece) and others have noted, we often pay too little attention to political listening. We tend (though not always) to focus on political talking. To borrow Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric, political communication is the art of discovering all of the available means of communication in a given situation. The ethics of political communication is mostly focused on what one ought to (or ought not to) say and how one ought to say it (or not say it). The focus is on political talk – fundraising emails, the role of consultants, speech writing, and so forth. For Aristotle and everyone after him, successful political talk requires understanding the audience so the speaker knows how to persuade them. Advocates usually listen to learn how to persuade, rather than listening to learn about an issue or idea.

Listening does get its due from civil discourse-good democracy organizations. For example, “Listening for Understanding instead of hearing to overpower” is one the National Institute for Civil Discourse’s key principles. Advocates of a more sane political square encourage people to listen to show respect, they argue that leaders should listen more closely to all of the people and not just select groups or elites, and that listening ensures people are seen “as political equals who are heard on their own terms” (The Politics of Listening).

Implied, but often explicitly absent in discussions of civil discourse, is the importance of listening to learn and possibly change our minds.

We listen to the news to learn about everything from Ukraine to the weather. We listen to mechanics to learn about the expensive sounding noise in our car. We listen to podcasts to learn about history or cooking.

But we tend to listen to politics to learn why we’re right. Even listening to understand is often listening to understand how otherwise well-meaning people could come to such daft conclusions, or how otherwise rational seeming people could be duped by such obvious buffoonery. Listening to understand rather than respond is often about learning how nice people got fooled into doing mean things, which makes it easier for me to show them what they should obviously do instead. We listen with empathy and say “oh, I see why you’re so misguided, it’s not your fault, here let me show you…” Even listening to understand is often instrumental.

Like many people – almost certainly like most people watching the January 6th Committee hearings – I have very strong opinions about the insurrection. Like many people, I would like to think that anyone listening – really listening, honestly and openly and not just to reinforce their preexisting beliefs – would obviously agree that Donald Trump attempted “a coup in search of a legal theory,” as US District Judge David Carter put it.

But what if that’s not what the hearings are showing? If the evidence were weaker and testimony less damning, would I change my mind? The case against the former president is pretty overwhelming, so I feel like I’m on good ground here. But what about less obvious topics like trade, natural gas as a “bridge” to clean energy, or immigration?

Democracy assumes no one person has all the answers. It assumes that we can only find the best way forward together by debating what the best way forward together is. One part of that debate is what we say and how we say it - the emails and the ads and signs and mail and rest of it. It is how we persuade because we assume the other side can be persuaded. Another part of that debate is how we listen, and what we do with what we learn.

Even as we persuade, we are also those people on the other side of someone else’s persuasion. We need to spend time with what we learn, we need to consider new information and ideas away from the maddening crowd and social media. We must be willing to say, “I’m not sure, I need to learn more,” or even “I used to think this, but I was wrong.” We demand that of those at whom we yell hear us and finally concede they’re wrong and we’re right. We need to be willing to listen to those trying to persuade us, and we need to be open to their persuasion.

Which is why I am watching the January 6th Committee hearings to learn. My opinion about Trump, his enablers and the attempted coup are unlikely to change. After each public hearing is over I will express my views in this space and elsewhere. I will talk to the press and my students. I am not a mere bystander.

But first I will listen to learn. Democracy demands no less.

Five Questions about Ethics in Political Communication: Anthony Thomas

Anthony Thomas is a graduate student in the School of Media and Public Affairs at the George Washington University. He graduated from GW magna cum laude and is completing a Masters in Media and Strategic Communications as part of a combined degree program. Anthony has worked at several strategic communication consulting firms while pursuing his degrees, including Seven Letter and New Heights Communications.

1 ) To what ethical standard should political communication be held? Where should political communication ethics be grounded?

In an ideal world, I believe that political communication should be held to a strict ethical standard, similar to how journalism functions in an ideal world. People working in this field should never lie, never bend the truth in the pursuit of their goals, and always be as egalitarian as possible in their advocacy. In the real world though, I believe that simply never lying is the standard that makes the most sense. No one should be blatantly spreading false information in order to win, as that has eroded our democracy and led us to the status quo. However, we are now engaged in an existential fight to decide the future of our country. With all the concurrent crises exacerbating extremist politics, I believe it to be irresponsible to always “go high.” Simply put, we cannot win if we continue to try to throw the rule book at people who haven’t observed the rules in decades. Therefore, we should always attempt to be as ethical as possible, and never cross the line of misleading the public into believing something that is untrue. However, using every other tool available to us to stop fascism is completely justifiable. 

2) Why should someone in political communication behave ethically? 

Everyone working in political communication should behave ethically, because not doing so makes you complicit in the erosion of our democratic values. In an age of disinformation and widespread disillusionment amongst American voters, there has rarely been a more important time to uphold ethical standards of truth. Americans nowadays are constantly searching for a trustworthy voice that will not mislead them or present them with heavily distorted information. By providing that, you are not only building trust in our institutions, but also avoiding adding more fuel to the fire. If you need a good example of what I mean by this, just look at the effect of former President Trump’s lack of ethics. Through four years of falsehoods and misdirection, Trump completely shifted the norm of what was okay to say in the political sphere. As a result, we have many copy-cat politicians who are claiming that the 2020 election was rigged, supporting racist conspiracy theories, and openly supporting insurrectionists. This is the direct result of behaving unethically in political communication.

3) Can you give an example of ethical political communication? What can people point to and say “do more of that?” 

People tend to think of political communication as only being about electoral campaigns, big speeches, and lobbying pushes. But there is plenty of political communication that occurs outside of those spaces, and I think that communication tends to be a great place to look for an ethical standard. For example, the NAACP is constantly running grassroots campaigns to sway local and national policy. As part of those campaigns, they consistently have to communicate with the public and elected officials. Despite the clear political slant of many of their issue areas, they manage to always be as truthful and informative as possible without distorting information or pretending to know more than they do. Their communication is based not only on moral appeals but also built on decades of research and expertise. They are thorough, concise, and geared towards educating the public about what is going on and why they should care. This, to me, is the purest form of political communication. 

4) Can you give an example of an ethical challenge or question you or political communication professionals in your field have faced or are likely to face? 

Over the course of my very short career, I have already had to face the question of where I draw the line when it comes to who I’ll work for. The unfortunate truth of our field is that we will sometimes be paid to help people that are not fully aligned with our beliefs. Sometimes, you will have to choose between those people and being unemployed. This raises an ethical question, where you must weigh your own future stability versus the possible impact of helping a campaign that you might not agree with. Maybe your contribution is negligible, or maybe it catapults the campaign to a position of leadership/authority that it could not have achieved without your support. You can never really know the exact outcome. The line will be different for every professional in this field, but it is something that everyone should consider. 

5) What advice about ethics do you have for people studying political communication or starting their careers in the field?

The only advice I have is to never forget that no matter how small what you’re doing seems to be, it matters. Many people think that they can discard ethics because their contribution is negligible in the grand scheme of things. This is not true. In my opinion, this attitude is partially to blame for the current state of our society. Everything you do as a political communication professional has a chance of being seen by the public, and communicating unethically only harms our democracy. It doesn’t matter if you see the campaign as unimportant, you never know what impact you could be having on the world in the long run, so you may as well behave ethically.  

A great example of this is the GamerGate controversy. At the time of GamerGate, most people thought that it was going to be a one-off, insignificant internet controversy spread by anti-social gamers. Years later, GamerGate is still being used to study how right-wing movements take-off online. No one involved in GamerGate could have guessed that this was going to happen, but it did, and their ridiculous tactics are now used to spread hate on an even wider scale. So always behave ethically to the best of your ability. You never know if your campaign will become a GamerGate, although hopefully you are never aiming for that. 

Five Questions about Ethics in Political Communication: Mike Hudome

Mike Hudome is a 37-year veteran of GOP campaigns and a leading campaign political consulting and advertising specialist. His clients have included Governors, Senators, Members of the House and Senate and elected officials at all levels in nearly every state. Mr. Hudome has advised and worked for every major national GOP committee and served as a state party Executive Director. He was a founding member of Foxhole Productions the advertising arm of John McCain for President in 2008. @MikeHudomeMedia

 1) To what ethical standard should political communication be held? Where should political communication ethics be grounded?

Probably a little higher than over-the-counter regular society standards. Political communication is how office holders and aspiring office holders talk to the public. What happens on campaigns generally mirrors what will happen in government.

When discussing ethics, we’re not discussing avoiding prosecution from crime. Campaigns and politicians should operate with decency and manners. Throw in old fashioned decorum, which is lacking all throughout society. I always shake my head when I see a gentleman wearing a hat indoors or going to a nice restaurant wearing a tee shirt.

Political communication ethics should be grounded in truth and above reproach. Rhetoric should pass the ‘smell test’ or the ‘laugh test’. Yeah, two different tests. Voters can usually sniff out BS. Newspapers can expose flat out lies. And TV stations can refuse your spot without proper documentation. Many ethical lapses can bring down a campaign while some are merely embarrassing.

2) Why should someone in political communication behave ethically?

 As an example, a press secretary on a campaign’s words and behavior are a reflection on the candidate. True, too, is that unethical behavior on the part of any campaign staffer reflects on the candidate for whom you give your blood, sweat and tears.

Campaigns tend to reflect the candidate. No candidate needs an ethical scandal defining them. But it is not only communications of the scandalous variety that can derail a candidacy.

3) Can you give an example of ethical political communication? What can people point to and say “do more of that?”

Do more of this: apologize. If a candidate gets caught using a false attack and having a spot pulled or suffering negative earned media, put it behind you, then make an honest attack. But be prepared for even more scrutiny.

When it comes to campaign mechanics, someone is going to make a mistake. For a staffer, let your boss know if you miscalculate the cash-on-hand or got the date of an event wrong or put a bottle on the plane that wasn’t your boss’ proffered spirit.

Campaigns are extremely intense and fast moving. It’s a world where the only resource you can’t get back is time. And you don’t have a time machine to reorder events and communications.

Have you ever noticed campaigns tend to use military jargon like ‘battle’, ‘war’ and ‘destroy’? Take it easy man. Put down Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” and slither back into polite society. Campaigns are indeed brutal, and you may be sleep deprived, perhaps feel abused by a higher-up, or even yelled at. But for heaven’s sake, you are not at war. I mention this because carrying on like you’re at war can lead to poor decisions. We’re all Americans. My generation of Democrat and Republican professionals are friends with one another. I don’t get the sense that is the case with those born after Ronald Reagan was first elected.

4) Can you give an example of an ethical challenge or question you or political communication professionals in your field have faced or are likely to face?

Family members of opponents are off limits. Period. That should not be an ethical challenge. Yet it is for many a sleazy campaign. Those campaigns tend to lose. Usually it is those who are invested in the candidacy who advocate for the wrong type of attacks. Often times, donors and the candidate’s own family can apply unrelenting pressure not to take the road less traveled. They may mean well, but they don’t know what they don’t know. Tell them “I could run your drug store in my spare time but I’m busy on this campaign trying to help your friend win.” (No, don’t say that. You’ll figure out a better way). Having the fortitude to stand up to bad ideas is essential for a winning campaign.

I worked a big campaign where our opponent went after my candidate’s brother who was mentally challenged. The despicable attacks slowed down our efforts and our opponent must live with the shame that accompanies the boorish attacks. Don’t leave your team with that sheen.

The term ‘digging up dirt’ is language used by Hollywood and amateurs. True opposition research follows standards like those a court might require.

Today’s political campaigns must navigate the ever-changing societal norms that are manifested in political correctness and woke or cancel culture. If you are in comms or write anything all from ads to tweets to press releases, make sure your campaign has something the equivalent of the AP Stylebook of writing standards. Have everything proofread whenever possible.

5) What advice about ethics do you have for people studying political communication or starting their careers in the field?

Think about applying what we might term the ‘Justice Potter Stewart’ standard. In a famous opinion in 1964 regarding the definition of ‘hard core’ pornography in 1964, the Supreme Court Justice wrote ‘I know it when I see it’. Meaning some things are self-evident. Neurotic campaigns – of which I’ve seen a few – often spend time hand wringing and relitigating things that are blatantly obvious. Waste of time. Don’t do it.

Just like the ‘smell test’ if your ethical dilemma can be solved with application of the above referenced standard, proceed accordingly.

If you want to be able to look at yourself in the mirror, then do your best. Set up some personal guardrails. Behave. Don’t break the law. Make your family proud. What would your spiritual leaders have to say? Has your significant other cut you off?

Oh, and make sure you are proud enough of your candidate and campaign that you can vote for said candidate. I like to ask the personal assistant who they are voting for at the end of the campaign.

Statement on the Jan 6 Hearings

Statement of Peter Loge, director of the Project on Ethics in Political Communication on the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate January 6 public hearings: 

“The January 6, 2021 insurrection was an attempt to overthrow our democracy. The physical attacks were the result of repeated rhetorical assaults on the foundations of our democratic experiment. Words have consequences. Those who promoted and engaged in the attack on the U.S. Capitol must be held accountable. Those who continue to baselessly attack our democratic institutions should be condemned.  

Politicians and pundits have an ethical obligation to promote, or at least not undermine, the foundations of our democracy. You cannot burn down a house and then expect to live in it.

Our democracy only works if those who participate in it believe it works. Our nation is an idea that only continues if we continue it. That means supporting and constantly improving the political system in which we are privileged to participate.”

Statement on the One Year Anniversary of the Attacks of Jan 6, 2021

You cannot burn down a house and then expect to live in it.

Last January’s insurrection should have been a reminder that words have consequences, and those consequences can include the demise of our national promise. Instead, the insurrection is seen by some as a way to raise money and gain electoral advantage at the expense of politics itself.

Politicians, pundits and political advocates have an ethical responsibility to support, or at the very least not undermine, our democratic institutions. That means condemning those involved in the insurrection, investigating those who supported and encouraged it, and holding to account those responsible for the violent attack on our nation's Capitol, the attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, and the undermining of a free and fair election.

• Peter Loge
  Director
  The Project on Ethics in Political Communication

Winter Update

Project on Ethics in Political Communication

Winter Update, December 2021

For a fall in which there were few elections, there was a lot going on. Some of our goings-on include:

Events and Talks

Hosted a conversation with School of Media and Public Affairs professor Ethan Porter, political strategist and CNN analyst Karen Finney, and SMPA student Samantha Millar about Prof. Porter’s research on elite political rhetoric. You can watch the discussion here.

Hosted a conversation about ethics and email fundraising with Shane Goldmacher of the New York Times, Democratic consultant Mike Nellis, Republican consultant Patrick O’Keefe, and SMPA student Caitlin Hartman. The event was moderated by George Washington University political scientist Andrew Thompson. You can watch the discussion here.

Joined the Center for the Study of Ethics in Society at Western Michigan University for a discussion about ethics and political rhetoric. You can watch the discussion here.

Political Communication Ethics is on the books

When students registered for spring classes in the School of Media and Public Affairs at The George Washington University they could sign up for Political Communication Ethics. This had been a “Special Topics” class, and now it is permanently on the books. As far as I know, this is the only undergraduate political communication ethics course taught in the US.

Don’t Lose Your Soul Just to Win and Election - A campaign ethics workbook

We are pleased to announce our first campaign ethics workbook. This short practical guide is meant for those just getting started in politics - and could be a good reminder for the rest of us.

Check it out and let us know what you think.

Five Questions About Ethics in Political Communication

We rolled out more of our Five Questions series asking educators, recent graduates, advocates and others the same five questions about ethics in political communication. We were thrilled to learn that a professor at Florida State University asks her students to answer the five questions for themselves.

What’s Next

Next year the Project will work on more case studies with the Media Ethics Initiative at UT Austin, will host more events, do more media outreach, lead more talks, and produce more writing. Have an idea, want to schedule a talk or write for our blog? Let us know.

Keep in Touch

You can keep with all the goings-on on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. Tell your friends.

Thank you as always for your support,

• Peter

  
  Peter Loge
  Director
  ploge@gwu.edu