11
Campaign Ethics in a Changing World
Carol A. Whitney
Introduction
The increasing public distrust of politics and politicians has been well documented in survey data and analyzed by the media. Americans today are cynical about politics. Candidates and political operatives are perceived with suspicion, and incumbent officeholders are equally suspect. Regular reports of legal and ethical violations by elected officials in both political parties only reinforce this impression.
It is difficult to measure ethics in politics, however, when there is no generally accepted definition of ethical behavior in campaign politics. The public as well as campaign professionals judge campaigns based on their own wildly varying ethical and moral standards. Most people don’t live up to the standards they profess. We set our standards high with the understanding that we may not always achieve them. So how can we judge whether campaign politics in this country really is as fraught with unethical behavior as the public believes? If it is not, why do campaigns have such a bad reputation? And if it is, what can we do about it?
Who Sets the Boundaries?
Alan Wolfe, in his book
Moral Freedom: The Search for Virtue in a World of Choice, points out the problems we face in setting moral and ethical boundaries in a world where there is no one overriding moral authority or generally accepted societal norm to define those boundaries for us. We must each struggle to find our own definition of “good.”
1Establishing ethical standards in campaign politics is difficult, given the varying moral standards by which we live, along with the fact that some practitioners see political standards as different from personal standards.
Some point to the law as the codification of society’s ethical standards. But that assumes that the law is unchanging, covers every aspect of ethical behavior, and is always “good.” Assuming that we obey the letter of the law, our behavior still may be unethical.
Is it necessary to adhere to the same standards in political activities as in our personal lives? Some argue that the rules of personal morality do not apply in the political world due to the competitive nature of the political game. One could argue, however, that any action justified in politics is a reflection of personal standards; we are still responsible for our actions.
As long as there is no one overriding authority recognized by society, imposition of strict laws and ethical codes will not ensure ethical conduct in campaigns.
Despite efforts to do so, perhaps most notably the Eighteenth Amendment, we cannot legislate morality.
2 Morality in political campaigns must depend on the campaigns themselves—the candidates, staff and advisers, and, to a degree, the candidates’ supporters.
Putting It in Perspective: Historical Precedents
You can’t use tact with a Congressman. A Congressman is a hog.
You must take a stick and hit him on the snout.
—HENRY ADAMS, 1838-1918
Were political campaigns more civil in the past? As far back as George Washington’s day, our country’s history provides examples of viciousness and questionable ethics in campaign politics. It has always been a rough-and-tumble business, and many practitioners believe it can be nothing else under our particular form of democracy.
In the early eighteen century John Randolph of Roanoke, a distinguished Virginia gentleman, described a fellow member of Congress with the phrase, “he stinks and shines like rotten mackerel by moonlight.” In 1884 Grover Cleveland was attacked by Republicans for fathering an illegitimate child; in retaliation, the Democrats produced a rhyme about his opponent: “Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine; the continental liar from the state of Maine.”
Does this represent a lost age of civility? Does the record of fist-fights, shouting matches, canings, and beatings on the floor of the House and Senate speak well for our ancestors? Today these stories seem amusing, and even at the time they made little general impact outside of Washington. Some political observers and historians believe that the rowdiness and exaggeration characterizing old-style politics was a healthy thing and that we have become far more narrow-minded about the process.
3 Is it then our expectations that are at fault? Or is it the greater impact of the news in an age where communication and news delivery are virtually instantaneous?
Scandals at the highest levels of government were as common (if not more so) one hundred years ago, when they received less public scrutiny. Critics of today’s negative advertising might consider the girl with the daisy ad run by Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 campaign. Although aired only once, it created a media furor.
4 The daisy ad ranks with the most blatantly unethical attack ads from the 1990s.
Is there any reason to believe that today’s political campaigns and candidates are really worse than those of the past? Memory of past events blurs over time, so that events from the past do not have the same impact as current events. But even more important for perceptions are the changes brought about by modern communication.
New Tools, Old Problems
The tools of campaign politics have changed dramatically over time, but the ethical dilemmas still revolve around the same basic elements of campaign activity: money, communications, and campaign conduct. The means of achieving the goal may have changed, but the goal remains the same: winning. Every campaign must communicate the candidate’s message to the voters, pay for the means of communication, and conduct a campaign to implement that communication.
Money and Ethics
Campaign finance, an ongoing focus of attention and the darling of reformers, is more a legal than an ethical problem. The debate is over what the law should cover, not what is right or wrong. Finance reform has been attempted numerous times over the course of our history in efforts to lessen the power of one special interest or another, but not surprisingly, there has never been full agreement on which groups’ power should be curtailed. Since the federal election laws of the 1970s established the Federal Election Commission (FEC), ongoing adjustments and corrections have complicated election law to the point that it is almost impossible for the layman to understand and comply with it. Federal election law has become not the codification of society’s ethical standards but the confused result of efforts to legislate fairness.
5The most recent effort to lessen the influence of money in campaigns was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, often called McCain-Feingold after its sponsors.
6 BCRA was designed to remove the influence of soft money from campaigns—funds that fall outside FEC finance regulations. Through soft money contributions, political parties could collect and spend unlimited funds from corporations and unions in “party building” activities—activities that benefitted their candidates.
BCRA has had its benefits. One provision requires that every television ad must include at the beginning or end a visual of the candidate stating his name and that he has approved this communication. The statement must also appear in print on the screen. Since this assigns personal responsibility to the candidate, each ad becomes a statement about the candidate’s ethical standards. Radio ads require the inclusion of the statement in the candidate’s voice. This requirement was challenged but was approved by the courts and took effect in 2004.
7It did not take long to discover the loopholes in the law. Through 527 organizations
8 that are not required to report their contributions and through legal bundling operations,
9 the flow of money continues.
No legal reform has dealt with the basic role of money in a political campaign. The “money is the root of all evil” proponents are convinced that removing money from the process will somehow make campaigns more ethical by removing temptation; the “money is just a medium of exchange” adherents are equally convinced that the desire for victory will be just as strong without financial incentives, and that removing money will not remove the overwhelming need for recognition and the competitive drive that characterize the candidate and the campaign professional. It is true that the cost of political campaigns has reached almost obscene levels. The high cost of communication is responsible for driving up spending, and communicating a message is the main function of a campaign.
No amount of legislation can prevent money from influencing campaign politics. Witness former Illinois governor Rod Blagojovich, who was indicted in December 2008 for attempting to sell the vacant Illinois Senate seat.
10 Certainly this was not ethical, but the fact that it violated the law had no impact on Blagojovich. It is time to recognize that attempts to take the power of money out of the political process have failed.
Ethics and Communications
Ethical questions for political campaigns—as well as the ethical dilemmas most commonly faced in campaign politics—most often center on the main function of any campaign: communication of information, the development and delivery of campaign message(s). Certainly the most blatant violations of accepted ethical standards occur in this area.
Today’s campaigns communicate information about their candidates and their opponents emphasizing the superior qualifications of their candidates over the opponents. The most common ethical questions arise out of what information is communicated, and how that communication is crafted and delivered. There may also be ethical dilemmas rising out of the withholding of information; for example, when the information withheld would change the validity or meaning of the message by providing context.
There are four general categories of unethical use of information in campaigns. A fifth, “under the radar” attacks, will be considered in the “New Media” section of this chapter.
Using False Information
The commandment “Thou shalt not lie” is still generally accepted as a guide to moral behavior, no matter how we approach the other nine commandments. Violations include not only lying about the opponent but fudging the facts just a little to make something sound better. Witness the exaggerated résumés published by a few candidates in every election cycle—and caught regularly by their opponents.
Using Negative Personal Information That Is Irrelevant to Job Performance
In this area the boundaries are difficult to define and have changed over time. It can be argued that personal indiscretions are not relevant, and certainly the public has been generous about forgiveness over the past few years. It can also be argued that a pattern of misbehavior, whether extramarital affairs or other moral transgressions, gives an indication of an individual’s general honesty and trustworthiness—important criteria for public officeholders. In today’s political environment attacks made on the basis of this type of information often don’t work unless accompanied by other evidence that the candidate may be unfit to serve.
Using Information to Create a False Impression
This area causes the most arguments among political professionals and leads to the greatest blurring of ethical boundaries. Many believe that “a fact is a fact, and it is perfectly ethical to present any factual information about my opponent and his or her voting record that I choose.” However, just as statistics can be manipulated to distort the truth, facts can be used to create a lie—because facts are delivered in a context, and the choice of context can skew the meaning.
The commonest example of this is the use of a series of legislative votes to create a false impression: “he is a dangerous liberal” or “she is a right-wing zealot” are among the most common. Often these votes are simply procedural, moving a bill to the floor for consideration (and possible defeat), or insignificant riders on bills of great importance. The meaning is purposely distorted in order to create a false impression. Is this any different from a lie?
Using Information to Appeal to Base Human Instincts
The most obvious example of this violation of ethical standards is the use of information to elicit racist, homophobic, or other discrimination-based responses. For example, while not openly avowing racist behavior, this approach encourages individuals who have racially based fears to respond in a racist manner.
Other culturally based fears and biases may be triggered in the same manner. Twenty-five years ago, for example, we used to joke about the “tough candidate on a tank with the national guard” television commercials that often appeared when the opponent in a gubernatorial race was a woman. Could we really prove that this was purposely done to remind voters that a woman might not be strong (manly) enough for the position? Of course not; maybe it was just coincidence.
There is little argument among political professionals as to whether this type of communication is wrong. The difficulty occurs in proving it was intended. Making a judgment regarding intent can be difficult. Many of us didn’t initially see racism in the infamous Willie Horton ad of 1988, but an ad that played on the public’s fear of violent crime. We all need to be more sensitive to and vigilant against advertising designed to reinforce discrimination.
At the same time, it’s easy to cross the line into political correctness, where innocent acts become guilty because an observer interprets them in that way. It remains a tough call, but one that has to be made.
Campaign Conduct
Misguided Cleverness
It is amazing what one may be tempted to do in the heat of the campaign. “Dirty tricks,” “dumpster diving” for material from the opponent’s campaign, tearing down the opposition’s yard signs, posting negative comments on the opponent’s Facebook page—these and many more may seem clever in the abstract. But whether or not they are ethi cal, they distract from the real purpose of the campaign and may cause embarrassing media attention. How would you like to see your photo on the front page of the local paper, upside down in a dumpster in front of the opponent’s headquarters in the dead of night? How would you explain your arrest for trespassing and theft when you are caught collecting yard signs from front yards? Keep this in mind.
These and more serious forms of questionable campaign conduct are common. A surprising number also violate the law. Campaign operatives have been convicted of federal crimes for activities that seemed clever, such as jamming phone communication to the opponent’s campaign.
Should you:
• Put up a fake web page for your opponent that attacks him?
• Follow the opposing candidate with a video cam and annoying questions, hoping to provoke her into a rash statement or an angry reaction?
• Send a spy into the opposition’s headquarters?
• Fake a photo for use in campaign materials?
• Fudge the truth on your candidate résumé? (You will always get caught.)
The clever ideas that are generated by exhausted campaign staffers, often late at night, are generally the ones that create problems for the campaign.
The “True Believers” Dilemma
When viewed from outside the process, ethical dilemmas in politics appear easy to resolve. Of course we want to do what is right. If we wouldn’t do it in other circumstances, why would we suddenly violate our own ethical standards in a political campaign?
Every one of us knows that our candidate is by far the best choice for the job, and that electing the opponent would be a terrible loss to society and the public good. Every candidate knows that it is in the public’s interest that he or she be elected over the opposition. We (political professionals) want candidates who have that “fire in the belly,” an incredible determination to win over all odds, because that intensity not only is necessary to carry a candidate through the incredible stress of the campaign but demonstrates to the public that the candidate really cares. We take the election process seriously in this country and we expect a lot from our candidates. Like it or not, most of us, candidates and consultants alike, are true believers in our cause—whether it be Republican or Democrat. This is why the system works as well as it does.
Little wonder, then, that temptation in a campaign setting is so hard to resist and may masquerade as the opportunity to do what is best for the country/state/community. Is it really so wrong, when victory is a point or two away and the opponent’s positions are absolutely wrong (or at least misguided), to shade the facts a little; to attack using questionable information; to insinuate something you cannot prove; to “leak” confidential information on the opponent; or to spread rumors or play on fears through so-called push polling?
11It is easy to sit in the office or the classroom and insist that you would do none of the above because they are unethical. It is far more difficult to do so in the heat of the campaign when victory is all-important. In the course of every political campaign, the candidate, the consultant, and the campaign operative face ethical dilemmas and difficult ethical decisions. How can we bring all parties to agreement on a course of action when the media consultant pushes one way, the campaign chair another, and the candidate is too exhausted to focus? A lot of decisions made in the last high-pressure days of the campaign are later regretted.
So how can we be certain the campaign team is equipped to make those tough calls?
Communication and Perception: The Role of the Media
People who love sausage and respect the law should never watch either of them being made.
—OTTO VON BISMARCK
The business of government today is conducted in full and immediate view of the people. When people see less than perfect behavior in the process or see their representatives making mistakes, they are disappointed (if not outraged). After all, they expect their elected officials to be better than they (the voters) are at running things. This puts a tremendous burden on those elected. They must be smarter, more capable, and more ethical than the general public, as well as conduct their business (and personal life) in full public view. Is it any wonder the best people often refuse to run?
Add to this the rapid pace of life today. People are accustomed to getting instant answers, finding immediate solutions, having full access to any information they seek. So why, they wonder, can’t Congress work that fast? They want action, they expect it fast, and they aren’t willing to accept the slow pace of government and legislative decision making.
But voters also have little time to spend thinking about elections and candidates. They are looking for shortcuts to decision making. They turn to the media for answers, and today’s media representatives are willing to provide them. You want to choose a candidate but you aren’t sure whose advertising to believe? We’ll judge it for you; we’ll even tell you which candidate is the best choice.
Journalists today see themselves as not only purveyors of information but guardians of public morality. Unfortunately, in the realm of politics they seem to see only immorality. While we understand why they believe it is their responsibility to present to the public every bit of information available on a particular story or the people involved, the media’s authority to make judgments on the morality of people and their actions is questionable.
Most journalists know little about the inner workings of the average political campaign, or the purpose of campaign activities. For example, I have been told that my unwillingness to explain to a member of the press just exactly what my campaign strategy is going to be is unduly secretive, that my candidate and I should be willing to share all such information with the public. Excuse me? Does one football team announce to the other their strategy for winning the game—or for specific plays?
We all accept that negative and startling stories are more news worthy (man bites dog), and that the media seek news that sells. But they are doing a disservice to the people of this country when they focus exclusively on the negative stories—and reinforce the negative assumptions—about politicians and politics. They know full well that they shape public opinion; how can they then decry the sad state of public regard for politics and our leaders?
There are many politicians in both parties who have high principles, are excellent role models, and have the best interests of the people at heart. The media needs to acknowledge this, and them. If politics is not considered an honorable calling, at least admit that honorable men suffer through the political process in order to serve.
The Power of the New Media
The Net and Campaign Conduct
The opportunities for delivering campaign messages, coordinating staff and volunteer activities, and raising funds have ballooned through the increasingly sophisticated use of the Internet. Email, social networking sites, and other tools available through today’s Internet technology have given campaigns and the public at large the ability to participate in the political process to an unprecedented degree. In Chapter 9 of this volume, Alan Rosenblatt provides a detailed picture of the political uses of the new media.
Increased use of the Internet has also led to new ethical questions. Today’s political figure is even more exposed than the politician of the past. Virtually every action may be captured on camera, posted on YouTube, and spread through large interlocking networks of Internet users. Only in today’s new media environment could George Allen lose his U.S. Senate seat in 2006 as a result of a single inappropriate remark to a heckler in the crowd. But
macaca lives on and can still be viewed online.
12 In 2008 numerous young campaigners trailed the opposition with video cameras and tried to provoke rash responses that could be posted online. Is it really ethical to annoy an elected official to the point of anger just to make him look bad? Our representatives are not saints: sometimes, in the heat of the campaign, they respond angrily to rudeness.
Where are the boundaries in this environment? Can any ethical standards be enforced? Does this provide a true picture of our society’s standards? We criticize campaigns for negative advertising and are offended by the innuendoes and false impressions provided “under the radar” by political direct mail. But the ethical questions of the new media exist below the surface and are far harder to track and control.
Today a campaign’s message can be delivered or subverted by the general public. Increased public participation in politics is a positive outcome. But the World Wide Web remains an uncensored, unpoliced medium for free exchange of information, true or false. Free speech issues have discouraged any efforts at regulation.
What’s News and What’s Real?
The Pew Center for People and the Press survey in 2008 showed that 13 percent of the public relies on the Internet for news; 26 percent of these “net newsers” read blogs regularly as news sources; 37 percent of the public uses Internet news sources three or more times per week in addition to other sources of news.
13But how much of the news on Internet sites is unbiased? Blogs are sources of opinion more than news, and these news sources are not moni tored for accuracy. Consequently a relatively large percentage of the public receives information from biased—and sometimes inaccurate—sources
The Persistence of Rumor
Internet-disseminated rumor is becoming an effective tool in the political process—the yellow journalism of the twenty-first century.
14 Thanks to the Internet, rumors and false allegations become a factor in political campaigns. In 2008, there were few who did not hear the false allegations that Barack Obama was a Muslim/Muslim terrorist/secret Muslim who would make this a Muslim country and/or abandon our relationship with Israel and/or make women wear head scarves. These rumors were refuted repeatedly, but many people continued to believe them, and those same rumors about President Obama can still be found on Internet sites and blog postings.
The almost universal use of email and the rapid growth of web-based social networking enables the virtually anonymous distribution of rumors to huge numbers of people almost instantly. Because of the interlocking nature of social networks, those receiving the information are likely to receive it multiple times, thus reinforcing it in their minds. According to current statistics, at least 73 percent of all Americans use the Internet and are targets for this type of false rumor.
This practice is unethical by any standards. It is also common. Shankar Vedantam, in a September 2008
Washington Post article, cited new studies showing that false information remains persuasive even after it is refuted. Oddly enough, the study also seems to show that refuting the information actually strengthens it.
15 The problem is that even if the candidate and campaign personnel do not spread such allegations, the campaign’s supporters and the public can post anything they like. This is how Barack Obama came to be forced to respond strongly to false allegations.
The persistence of false rumors on the Web lends credence to the negative perceptions of today’s ethical standards. That should not mean that those of us involved in politics should abandon our own standards of decency.
Setting an Ethical Course
It makes no difference whether today’s political campaigns are or are not less ethical than in the past. The problem lies in the fact that the public believes they are, and this very real problem must be dealt with. Now that our elected representatives are perceived as negatively as candidates and political consultants (somewhere below lawyers and used car salesmen), maybe something can be done about it. Failing that, our representatives will find it hard to do the job they were elected to do.
It will take concerted action to regain the public trust.
The answer does not lie in legislation or regulation. Setting artificial standards will not change human behavior. We will always face ethical dilemmas in the heat of the political campaign, and some people will yield to temptation. There will continue to be political operatives who say that “it all boils down to what you can get away with.” Campaign conduct in general, and the public perception of politics, will be changed over the long run only through joint action by the candidates, the political professionals, the media, and the public.
Conclusion: A Code of Ethics or a Call to Action?
There may be no overriding moral or legal authority in a position to establish and enforce a binding code of ethics on the players in the campaign process. But ethical codes can and should govern the actions of every candidate and campaign professional. Ethical behavior inside the profession, however, is not enough to regain public trust.
There is a role for everyone in improving campaign conduct.
1. The Candidates:
Several organizations have tested ethical codes for candidates. The Institute for Global Ethics, for example, tested voluntary compliance with codes of ethics in congressional campaigns in a number of states beginning in 1998.
16 Common Cause, the Alliance for Better Campaigns, and the Project for Excellence in Journalism have worked to develop higher standards for campaigns. But a study by West, Maisel, and Clifton in 1994 demonstrated that none of the reforms had a substantial impact on campaign behavior.
17It is my opinion as a political consultant that the strongest step toward better ethical conduct is a higher level of awareness and personal responsibility. Consequently, I ask candidates to sign the following statement:
CANDIDATE CODE OF ETHICS
• I believe that the electoral process demands as high a level of personal integrity as does service in elected office, and that my campaign is a demonstration of my integrity.
• I pledge to provide the voters with accurate information regarding myself and my opponent in order to allow them to make informed choices on Election Day.
• I accept responsibility for the information delivered by my campaign, and the way in which that information is presented.
• I will maintain vigilance over my campaign to ensure that campaign personnel do not misrepresent the facts or mislead the voters, and will make it clear to them at all times that I demand the highest level of integrity from all who represent my campaign.
A candidate who signs this statement is accepting personal responsibility for the conduct of the campaign. It eliminates the excuses and wiggle room (“the consultant didn’t tell me . . .” “I couldn’t do anything about it . . .”), and consequently candidates who sign this pledge are making a commitment to maintain ethical standards.
2. The Political Professionals:
The American Association of Political Consultants has an official code of ethics. But because membership in the association is voluntary it does not establish an enforceable set of standards for the industry.
Political consultants succeed or fail based on the actions of the public, however, and it is possible that if public awareness is increased, public action will not be far behind. Any consultant with a public reputation for unethical conduct will find work only with candidates who accept unethical behavior, and will be a red flag to the voters.
Professionals in both parties must continue current efforts to define ethical campaign conduct and increase awareness of ethical considerations among new political operatives entering the field. Training in ethical politics, now a curriculum element in a number of universities, as well as partisan and bipartisan political training programs, must be expanded.
Campaign staffers and students should consider following these guidelines:
• Know your ethical boundaries and establish clear standards for yourself. Don’t get hung up on judging others. It’s enough responsibility to watch yourself.
• Be firm about not violating your personal ethical standards.
• Don’t be party to someone else’s violating them. Don’t split hairs when assessing what others on the campaign are doing, but maintain your basic sense of ethical behavior. It may be difficult to accurately judge intent in others.
In the heat of the campaign you will be tempted. You may give in. If you do, you will eventually forgive yourself but you will never forget.
3. The Media:
Many journalists are trying to encourage greater public scrutiny of campaign advertising practices (and more honesty in advertising) through their “ad watch” programs. But these don’t deal with the biggest problem areas. Most of the truly unethical campaign message delivery does not take place on television, but in political mail and activities like push polling, the “under the radar” advertising that is hard to catch. A watch over political mail and the elements of the new media such as social networking sites and YouTube would be even more beneficial to the process.
But the media can do more than promote civility among campaigns. The media can contribute to the civility of public discourse through self-scrutiny and more civil reporting of government, politics, and politicians. Organizations like the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which focuses on “raising the standards of American Journalism through research and education,” are a good start.
18 The power of the media can yield positive results when put to good use, and certainly renewed pride in our system of government and elections is a result worth seeking.
4. The Public:
The public has the greatest share of responsibility in a democratic society.
But as our population and our government have grown in size, our connection with our government has diminished. As the workings of government have become more visible, our admiration for our representatives has declined. In an effort to gain control over what they perceive to be a failing system, citizens have tried to bring government down to its lowest common denominator—local and personal control. More and more, they have ignored the electoral process because they see no power in their vote and because all politicians are venal, all campaigns unethical, all elected officials basically corrupt.
In 2008 Barack Obama convinced voters that he too was tired of negative, partisan politics. He pledged to change our political process for the better, and voters turned out to support his election. It is too soon to judge him, but we must remain hopeful that he will indeed lead a positive change in the conduct of politics and government in this country.
The public needs to continue to stand watch. Through education, public awareness of ethics in politics can be increased among students. Through emphasis on ethical behavior on the part of candidates and campaign professionals, the public can be made more aware of the posi tive work being done inside the profession. Through more equitable media coverage, the positive reality of political behavior can be demonstrated. But the voters also must do their part.
Those of us who work in the profession take pride in our work and our ethical standards. We invite the voters to join us, to participate fully in the political process. That participation can, in the end, provide the solution.
Notes
1 Alan Wolfe,
Moral Freedom: The Search for Virtue in a World of Choice (New York: Norton, 2001).
2 The Eighteenth Amendment established Prohibition, when the sale of alcohol was illegal in the United States. Prohibition was voided by the Twenty-first Amendment.
3 See “Put the Incivility Back in Politics,”
Wall Street Journal, October 12, 1998.
4 The daisy ad, produced by President Lyndon Johnson’s campaign, intimated that Barry Goldwater, if elected, would lead this country into nuclear war.
5 For a review of past campaign finance controversies, see “The Long, Stormy Marriage of Money and Politics,”
American Heritage, November 1998.
8 A 527 is a nonprofit organization formed under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, which grants tax-exempt status to political committees at the national, state, and local level. The term has come to refer to a new form of political organization operating in a gray area of the law. These groups actively influence elections and policy debates at all levels of government, but do not advocate explicitly for election or defeat of candidates.
9 Bundling is the practice of pooling a number of individual contributions to maximize the political influence of the bundler. PACs and party committees that have given the maximum allowed by law often give more money to candidates by bundling individual contributions.
11 Push polling is the practice of using phone banks to disseminate negative messages (usually accusations) in the guise of taking a poll. The question is usually phrased something like, “Would you be more or less likely to vote for John Doe if you knew that . . .”
14 Yellow journalism is defined as biased opinion masquerading as objective fact (library.thinkquest.org).
15 Shankar Vedantam, “The Power of Political Information,”
Washington Post, September 15, 2008.