Candidate conduct pledge is misguided
A Times Editorial
Published December 23, 2006
Pinellas County Commissioner Karen Seel reflects the frustration of many voters who were disgusted by the distorted, negative attacks that set a new low for local sleaze in the 2006 political campaigns. But the answer is not a government-written pledge that would encourage candidates to play nice.
A proposed county ordinance backed by Seel is well-intended but misguided. It would create a Code of Ethical Campaign Practices, and candidates in Pinellas would be asked to sign it voluntarily. The proposed oath would ask candidates to pledge to reject campaign material that distorts or misrepresents facts. They would agree to avoid making an opponent's race, gender or sexual orientation a campaign issue and speak out against anyone who raises such personal issues.
Of course, these are ideals all candidates should embrace without signing a government form. And under the proposed ordinance, there would be no one determining who broke the voluntary pledge and no penalties for those candidates who signed on and then waded into the mud. The idea would be that the media would shame candidates into behaving better by publicizing who didn't sign the pledge - or who did and then violated it.
But policing the tenor of political campaigns, even in a voluntary way, is not government's role. That is best left to independent groups unaffiliated with candidates or the county courthouse. Citizens for Fair Campaign Practices, a local group that effectively served this role for a time but has now disbanded, is one such model. There might be other variations that would work as well.
Seel acknowledges that she would prefer another method of cleaning up political campaigns than approving a county ordinance, which the County Commission is expected to air at a public hearing in January. But she sees no other viable alternative. That doesn't mean government-sponsored standards are the way to go, no matter how generic and well-meaning they sound.
In tone and volume, the 2006 campaigns were often depressingly negative. Yet voters did an admirable job slogging through the muck and rejecting many of those candidates who engaged in the worst name-calling. That should send a stronger signal to future candidates about how to conduct themselves than any voluntary pledge that county government hands out.
Published December 23, 2006
Pinellas County Commissioner Karen Seel reflects the frustration of many voters who were disgusted by the distorted, negative attacks that set a new low for local sleaze in the 2006 political campaigns. But the answer is not a government-written pledge that would encourage candidates to play nice.
A proposed county ordinance backed by Seel is well-intended but misguided. It would create a Code of Ethical Campaign Practices, and candidates in Pinellas would be asked to sign it voluntarily. The proposed oath would ask candidates to pledge to reject campaign material that distorts or misrepresents facts. They would agree to avoid making an opponent's race, gender or sexual orientation a campaign issue and speak out against anyone who raises such personal issues.
Of course, these are ideals all candidates should embrace without signing a government form. And under the proposed ordinance, there would be no one determining who broke the voluntary pledge and no penalties for those candidates who signed on and then waded into the mud. The idea would be that the media would shame candidates into behaving better by publicizing who didn't sign the pledge - or who did and then violated it.
But policing the tenor of political campaigns, even in a voluntary way, is not government's role. That is best left to independent groups unaffiliated with candidates or the county courthouse. Citizens for Fair Campaign Practices, a local group that effectively served this role for a time but has now disbanded, is one such model. There might be other variations that would work as well.
Seel acknowledges that she would prefer another method of cleaning up political campaigns than approving a county ordinance, which the County Commission is expected to air at a public hearing in January. But she sees no other viable alternative. That doesn't mean government-sponsored standards are the way to go, no matter how generic and well-meaning they sound.
In tone and volume, the 2006 campaigns were often depressingly negative. Yet voters did an admirable job slogging through the muck and rejecting many of those candidates who engaged in the worst name-calling. That should send a stronger signal to future candidates about how to conduct themselves than any voluntary pledge that county government hands out.
posted by Adam Tebrugge | 8:16 AM
<< Home