Campaign ethics and reform: what candidates say - Political Advisor

Is there a Gender Gap in Campaign Ethics?

IS THERE A GENDER GAP in what candidates consider to be acceptable campaign practices? In A Different Voice, psychologist Carol Gilligan argues for the existence of a female morality that relies upon concepts of care and interpersonal responsibility. Applying this theory to elections, one could argue that women candidates and public officials make ethical decisions based on different assumptions than do men and are less likely to engage in negative campaigning.

In 1992, the so-called "year of the woman," many pundits picked up on this theme, arguing that electing members of the "fairer sex" would bring a breath of fresh air to Washington. Others were more skeptical, countering that only women candidates who have become socialized to the campaign process and have adopted the "win-at-all-costs" attitude embraced by many male candidates would run for office and get elected.

A recent survey conducted by the Center for American Politics and Citizenship at the University of Maryland and Campaigns & Elections magazine, with funding from The Pew Charitable Trusts, recorded over 4,000 candidates' opinions on campaign practices and ethics.

The respondents ranged from candidates for governor to the U.S. House of Representatives to state legislature to the local school board. They included Democrats and Republicans, incumbents, challengers, and candidates for open seats, winners and losers. All of the candidates ran for election between 1998 and 2000. Almost one-quarter of the respondents were women. The data make possible some unique insights into what women and men who run for public office consider ethically appropriate to do in the heat of a political campaign.

The study asked candidates whether they believed it was acceptable, unethical or questionable to engage in a variety of campaign practices, including making factually untrue statements out of context, focusing on an opponent's negative characteristics, employing push polling or using negative advertising to decrease voter turnout. The results show the existence of a noteworthy gender gap.

Do men and women disagree over whether candidates should lie or stretch the truth when running for office? A previous survey conducted by the Center showed that virtually all candidates -- regardless of gender -- believed it was both ethically wrong and politically risky to knowingly make statements that are factually untrue when running for office. The candidates recognized that in these days of "media watches" and opposition research, the truth would eventually catch up with them.

This survey provides similar results, demonstrating that more than two-thirds of all candidates consider it wrong to make factually true statements out of context. Seventy-two percent of all of the women candidates held this view, as opposed to only 66 percent of the men (see Table 1). The gender gap is greatest at the top of the ticket. Women are more opposed to making factually true statements out of context than men by 15 percent among US. Senate, governor and other statewide candidates, as compared to 10 percent for candidates for the U.S. House, and less than 10 percent for candidates for state legislatures, county, local and municipal offices.

Men and women also disagree about attacking an opponent in an attempt to discourage that candidate's supporters from turning up at the polls. This tactic, considered unethical by 70 percent of all aspirants for public office, was also marked by a notable gender gap: 79 percent of all female candidates opposed using it, as opposed to 67 percent of all males (see Table 2). Once again, gender differences were greatest among candidates for higher offices and lowest for county, local and municipal candidates.

The gender gap for push polling -- calling voters under the guise of taking a telephone survey, but attacking an opponent instead -- was smaller. The survey responses show that, overall, women were only slightly more likely to disapprove of this tactic, but that the disagreement among men and women was greatest among candidates for higher offices, where this tactic is most frequently used (see Table 3).

Fifty-four percent of all female candidates for statewide office or Congress consider push polling unethical, as opposed to only 44 percent of the male candidates for these offices. Substantially fewer candidates from downballot races shared this opinion, and there were no significant differences among men and women candidates for the state legislatures, county, municipal and local offices on this issue.

The findings for plain old attack politics -- focusing on an opponent's negative characteristics -- also show the persistence of a gender gap (see Table 4). While most candidates do not approve of this tactic, the proportion of male and female candidates who consider it acceptable is greater than it is for stretching the truth, going negative to decrease voter turnout or using push polls. More than one-quarter of all candidates considered this practice unethical, 44 percent regarded it as questionable, and a full 30 percent felt it was acceptable. Among the women candidates, 35 percent considered this an unethical practice, as compared to 23 percent of the men -- a gender gap of 12 percent. Interestingly, the gender gap is greatest among candidates for low-level offices. Male and female candidates for the US. Senate, governor and other statewide posts are among the most likely to agree in their opposition to negative campaigning. Men running for local offices, on the other hand, are substantially more likely to go on the attack.

The survey results provide evidence that there is a significant but not overwhelming gender gap in campaign ethics. Many women recognize that there are times when it is acceptable to go negative, but fewer female than male candidates embrace a "no-holds-barred" approach to campaigning.

Moreover, women place a somewhat higher priority on running with honesty and integrity when they wage their first campaigns, and continue to cling to higher standards of ethical propriety as they move up the ranks of elective offices. State Representative Joan B. Quick of Rhode Island noted that this may be because women get into politics for different reasons. "For men, running for office is part of a natural career path. Women tend to get into politics because they are interested in issues, because they want to try to make the world a better place." Recent increases in the number of women running for political office could mean stronger ethical standards for campaigns, which in turn could help improve public faith in politics and elections.

"Minority Views" on Campaign Reform and Ethics

Paul S. Herrnson

Atiya Kai Stokes

RACE IS OFTEN CALLED the "third rail" of American politics. Debates over civil rights, affirmative action, and the criminal justice system almost always have racial overtones. Discussions of what are not inherently race-related issues, such as organ transplant policy and the use of seniority as a consideration for promotions, frequently have racial undertones. Of course, race is a significant factor in many aspects of campaign politics, including re-districting, message selection, and voter targeting. A recent decision by several members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) to break with their party's drive for campaign finance reform and oppose banning soft money shows that race even crops into issues that concern the nuts-and-bolts of campaign politics.

Most discussions of the impact of race on elections focus on strategic issues, such as the responses of different blocs of voters to candidates' racial characteristics and race-related issues. However, the argument made by CBC members who opposed the Shays-Meehan bill (more widely known as McCain-Feingold, after its Senate sponsors) that banning federal-level soft money would result in lower turnout among African Americans suggests that minority candidates view at least some aspects of campaign politics differently than do their white counterparts. Indeed, one could argue that given minority groups' historical exclusion from holding public office, and continued under-representation in the halls of government, it would be perfectly reasonable for them to perceive the world of campaign politics differently than do white candidates. However, there are at least two counterarguments: first, the widespread professionalization of campaign politics has had a homogenizing effect on how candidates of all races perceiv e the electoral arena; and second, minority candidates' recent successes in winning elections have encouraged them to view the electoral process in ways that are no longer distinctive.

A recent survey conducted by the Center for American Politics and Citizenship at the University of Maryland and Campaigns & Elections magazine, with funding from The Pew Charitable Trusts, enables us to explore whether minority candidates have distinctive views about the campaign process. The survey recorded over 4,000 candidates' opinions on different aspects of political campaigning and election reform. The respondents ranged from candidates from the U.S. House of Representatives to the local school board. They included Democrats and Republicans, incumbents, challengers and candidates for open seats, and winners and losers. All of the candidates ran for election between 1998 and 2000. Fifteen percent of the respondents identified themselves as African American, Latino, Asian American, Native American or mixed race. The data make possible some unique insights into minority candidates' perspectives on campaign practices, ethics, and election reform.

The survey results show that minority and white candidates agree on a variety of campaign practices related to campaign ethics, but disagree on others. The strongest levels of agreement concern stretching the truth and seeking to demobilize an opponent's supporters. More than two-thirds of all white candidates and an equal proportion of minority candidates maintain that making factually true statements out of context is inappropriate behavior in the course of a campaign, and they disapprove of using negative advertising to decrease voter turnout.

White and minority candidates also hold similar positions on whether it is appropriate to make an opponent's negative characteristics the focus of their campaigns. About 30 percent of each group believes this practice is acceptable, another 44 percent believe it is questionable, and the remaining 26 percent consider it unethical.

One area where there is significant disagreement concerns push polling -- calling voters under the guise of taking a telephone survey, but instead attacking an opponent. Twenty-four percent of all minority candidates consider this to be an acceptable campaign tactic and 32 percent consider it to be unethical, as opposed to 15 percent and 40 percent of all white candidates (see Figure 1).

Another area of disagreement is the candidates' self-evaluation of the tone of their campaigns. By a margin of more than five points, minorities are less likely to state they wage positive campaigns and are more likely to describe their campaigns as comparative than are whites (see Figure 2). This probably reflects the fact that more minority than white candidates are challengers, and challengers need to contrast their qualifications and issue positions with those of their opponent in order to give voters reasons to replace the incumbent.

The survey results also show that candidates of different races have more areas of agreement than disagreement when it comes to raising sensitive matters in the heat of a campaign. We asked the candidates whether they believe it is appropriate or inappropriate to raise a variety of subjects against a political opponent. More than 60 percent of all the candidates -- regardless of race -- answered it was inappropriate to raise issues concerned with experimentation with drugs as a youth, and more than 70 percent felt that private matters, such as marital infidelity or a previously unpublicized homosexual relationship should be taboo.

There also was very strong agreement across racial lines about raising matters that might have a bearing on an individuals' ability to perform the duties associated with public office. More than two-thirds of the minority and white candidates felt it was appropriate to discuss a documented case of sexual harassment or an opponent's failure to pay child support, presumably because these matters suggest deep character flaws that could carry over into the workplace.

Minority and white candidates did disagree on some ethical issues, however. A majority of all candidates believed that it was appropriate to raise an opponent's failure to pay back property taxes, a recent bankruptcy, or a conviction for driving under the influence (DUI), or the employment of an illegal immigrant in their home. Nevertheless, more white candidates stated they would be willing to inject these issues into the campaign than did minority candidates (see Figure 3). These results can be at least partially explained by partisanship. More minority candidates are affiliated with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, and their attitudes may correspond to the Democrats' somewhat greater permissiveness on these issues.

The only issue on which the candidates did not hold a consensus concerned publicly discussing an opponent's hiring an illegal immigrant to work in their home: 53 percent of all candidates thought it would be appropriate to make this a campaign issue and 47 percent did not. Whites were somewhat more likely to consider this an appropriate decision than were minority candidates. However, African American candidates were largely in agreement with whites on this issue. Latinos and Asians were somewhat more likely to have an opposing view (see Figure 4).

A final battery of questions asked candidates their views about the campaign finance system. White and minority candidates held virtually identical opinions on this issue: 26 percent agree with the statement that the system is broken and needs to be replaced, 42 percent maintain that it has problems and needs to be changed, 27 percent believe it has problems but is basically sound, and the remaining 4 percent consider it okay the way it is and think it should not be changed. Large majorities of minority and white candidates also agree on several campaign finance reform measures, including full and instant disclosure of campaign finances, providing campaigns with free media time or postage and allowing tax deductions for small contributions.

Areas of significant disagreement concern contribution limits, where minority candidates voice greater support for both lowering and raising them and whites are more supportive of the status quo, and outlawing soft money (See Figure 5). The findings for soft money reflect the recent decision by some members of the CBC not to sign the discharge petition that would bring the Shays-Meehan bill to a vote in the House out of a fear that eliminating these funds would lead to a decline in turnout among minority voters, who often require extra encouragement to show up at the polls.

Voting reform constitutes another area where substantial disagreement exists between white and minority candidates. More white than minority candidates oppose election day registration, which is used in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and five other states; voting by mail, which is now the sole way of voting in Oregon and is widely used in seventeen other states; and multi-day or early voting, which is used in Arizona, Iowa, Kansas and Texas. Opposition to these reforms undoubtedly stems from both factual and fictionalized accounts of voters making multiple visits to local polling booths or rising from the dead to exercise their voting rights. Most incidents of wide-scale voter fraud reportedly occur in inner cities, which are largely populated by minority groups. White candidates also voice greater opposition to Internet voting. Whites are clearly more concerned than are minorities about the possibility of vote fraud. The minority candidates' views are more in line with those of the Democratic Party (see Figure 6).

In sum, the survey results demonstrate that minority and white candidates agree more than they disagree on campaign practices, ethics and reform. Party affiliation helps to explain some but not all of the issues about which candidates from different racial backgrounds disagree. Indeed, on some issues, such as party soft money - where minority legislators and candidates perceive that they or their constituents interests could be affected - minority candidates are willing to buck the party line.

This is another point of similarity they have with other legislators. Generally speaking, minority candidates are not in the minority in terms of their views on campaign practices, ethics and campaign reform.

FIGURE 1

The Appropriateness of Using Push Polls

              Whites  Minorities

Unethical      40%       32%
Acceptable     15%       24%
Questionable   47%       45%

Note: Table made from bar graph
FIGURE 2

The Tone of the Campaign

                    Whites  Minorities

Mostly Comparative   24%       28%
Mostly Positive      73%       68%

Note: Table made from bar graph
FIGURE 3

Appropriateness of Raising Ethical Issues in the Campaign

                              Minority  White

Opponent's failure to pay       69%      79%
 back property taxes

Recent bankruptcy               47%      55%

Conviction for driving under    64%      68%
 the influence (DUI)

Employment of an illegal        50%      56%
 immigrant

Note: Table made from bar graph
FIGURE 4

Appropriateness of Raising the Issue of Illegal Employees by Race and
Ethnicity


White             56%
African American  58%
Latino            49%
Asian             43%

Note: Table made from bar graph
FIGURE 5

Support for Campaign Finance Reform

                        Whites  Minorities

Lower spending limits    31%       35%
Higher spending limits   26%       31%
Outlaw soft money        58%       49%

Note: Table made from bar graph
FIGURE 6

Opposition to Voting Reforms

                        Whites  Minorities

Election day voter       55%       43%
 registration

Voting by mall           40%       32%

Multi day/early voting   81%       25%

Internet voting          60%       54%

Note: Table made from bar graph
TABLE 1

Make True Statements Out of Context

              Women  Men

Questionable   25%   30%
Unethical      72%   68%

Note: Table made from bar graph
TABLE 2

Use Negative Advertising to Depress Voter Turnout

              Women  Men

Questionable   18%   25%
Unethical      79%   67%

Note: Table made from bar graph
TABLE 3

Use Push Polls

              Women  Men

Acceptable     14%   17%
Questionable   45%   45%
Unethical      41%   38%

Note: Table made from bar graph
TABLE 4

Focus on Opponent's Negative Characteristics

              Women  Men

Acceptable     20%   33%
Questionable   46%   43%
Unethical      35%   23%

Note: Table made from bar graph

Is there a Gender Gap in Campaign Ethics?

Peter L. Francia, Paul S. Herrnson and Jennifer C. Lucas are research fellow, director and graduate research assistant of the Center for American Politics and Citizenship at the University of Maryland.

"Minority Views" on Campaign Reform and Ethics Paul S. Herrnson is director and Atiya Kai Stokes is graduate research assistant of the Center for American Politics and Citizenship at the University of Maryland.

This research is part of the Campaign Assessment and Candidate Outreach Project, which is funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

COPYRIGHT 2002 Campaigns & Elections, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group