The Democratic Party Code of Ethics

The Code of Ethics

The Democratic Party needs a code of ethics.   The Republican Party needs one, too, but for now, I’m going to talk about changes needed in the national Democratic Party to win elections. 

As in most things, there is an ethical dimension and a practical dimension to this proposal.  Democrats need a Code of Ethics because they need better standards for behavior; in other words, because it is the right thing to do.  And in a practical sense, Democrats need a Code of Ethics because they need a better reputation in order to win elections.  Unethical behavior and lack of integrity lead to bad results.  When these come to light, the Republican opposition has a field day denouncing Democrats, tarnishing the Democratic brand.  Democrats lose votes, and lose elections.  Beyond that, ethical behavior and fair play are essential to a democratic and free society.  It is the right thing to do.

A code of ethics is not a set of By-laws.   The By-laws are the constitution of the party, which define powers, responsibilities, and the processes for governance.  A code of ethics is not a platform.  The platform is the set of beliefs and goals for the party.  Instead, the code of ethics establishes rules for behavior.

The code of ethics governs both individual and collective behaviors.  Generally, the code specifies what behaviors are prohibited, but may also specify what proactive behaviors should be practiced by Democratic party members. 

The code should include a process for hearing complaints and a process of enforcement.  Ethical complaints should receive serious, confidential investigation.  Actions on ethical problems should be public and transparent.

I.                     Personal and Candidate Ethics

Conflicts of interest lead to poor choices in government, and lead to loss of trust by the public.  Therefore, individuals in the Democratic Party should avoid conflicts of interest, and any appearance of a conflict of interest.  Establishing a code of ethics according to these standards will require changes to certain behaviors which are currently considered normal and acceptable. 

Speaking Fees

Speaking fees should be capped at $5000 per appearance, and $150,000 per year.  In the recent past, Democratic Party leaders have received payments in the range of hundreds of thousands of dollars per appearance.  The clients for the speaking fees are generally high-wealth corporations, such as investment banks, or industry lobbying groups.  Hillary Clinton collected over $20,000,000 in speaking fees from such clients between her tenure as Secretary of State and her presidential run.  Everyone on the planet understood that she would be running for President, and these fees were simply a way of currying favor in the event she won the election. 

A few years ago, a retired Alaskan politician reflected back on his time in office, and realized that if any group gave 500 dollars to his campaign, he looked upon that group more favorably while in office.  It was a simple reaction, and very hard to objectively overcome.  The price of influence was $500. 

Here is a small hint to any high-profile politician who is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars per speaking engagement.  Your audience has no interest in what you have to say.  They just want to make sure that you take the money, and remember who gave it to you.  In other words, a speaking fee is another way to say “bribe”.  Accepting such large amounts of money creates a conflict of interest, and an appearance of a conflict of interest, and should be prohibited.

Other Ethical Rules for Individuals and Candidates

• There should be no quid-pro-quo for performing official duties while in office.
• There should be no quid-pro-quo for campaign funds, or the distribution of funds to other campaigns.
• Individuals, candidates and office holders should comply with all laws concerning communications, especially laws concerning communications in the course of public service.
• Private electronic communications should be kept entirely separate from official party or government communications.
• Records of party or government communications should be kept or destroyed according to a set records retention policy.
• Individuals in office should recuse themselves on issues which might incur a conflict of interest.
• No position of authority should be used for gain or intimidation.
• Every person should be given respect equally, in official and unofficial contexts.

II.                  Collective and Party Ethics

The Party and its elected officials have a responsibility for collective ethical behavior.  These behaviors should set the party apart from the opposition, although in a perfect world, each side would behave ethically. 

Use of Campaign Funds

Campaign funding can be an ethical minefield.  By its very nature, fund-raising for political campaigns creates many risks of ethical problems, and can create conflicts of interest, or the appearance of conflicts of interest.  Strong ethical guidelines and transparency should be in place to discourage unethical situations involving campaign funding.

Campaigns should avoid accepting funding from sources which would incur or imply any obligation after the candidate is in office.  There should no quid-pro-quo in accepting campaign funding or sharing campaign funding between local and national organizations. 

Actress Margot Kidder (noted for playing investigative reporter Lois Lane) wrote an article in April 2016 for the website Counterpunch.com, accusing the Clinton campaign of buying superdelegate votes through an arrangement to raise and distribute campaign funds with state parties.  https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/  The accusation carries the ring of truth, because Clinton had gained pledged support of 75 percent of the superdelegates before the Super Tuesday primaries.  Whether true or not, this action gives the appearance of impropriety, and illustrates precisely the kind of unethical behavior that needs regulation through party processes.  If party officials actually thought that buying votes in the party nomination process was OK, they need to think that one through again.

Selection of Candidates

The party should have clear, documented, fair processes for the selection of candidates.  Although the party can and should use tools (such as focus groups and polling) to determine which candidates are the most electable, party functionaries should not “have a thumb on the scale” to determine which candidates receive nominations.  Competition for nomination should be transparent and fair to all candidates.    

Other Ethical Rules for the Party

• The party should defend the rights of those with whom we disagree.
• The party should demonstrate respect for the opposition in words and deeds, publicly and privately.
• Elected Democratic officials should not orchestrate a failure to fulfill their constitutional duties for any reason.
• The party should not engage in gerrymandering.
• The party should encourage registration of all legal voters, and work to enable all voters to vote.  The party will not engage in strictly partisan registration.
• The party will not engage in illegal voter registration, or work to impair or suppress legal voting.
• Any legislation proposed by a party member will carry an accurate and reasonably complete description of the intent of the legislation in its title. 
• Deception should be avoided in all things, including campaigning, public communications, and in legislation. 
• Party officials should not engage in any behavior which is counter to fair play, within the party processes, or in external politics.

III.                Difficult Ethical Issues

There are ethical issues which are beyond the ability of the party to correct in the near term.  These are issues which would give an insurmountable advantage to the opposition if the Democratic Party foreswore certain practices.  The code of ethics should recognize those issues, table the issues for the current time, and propose a long-term process for correction.  Ideally, the process for correction would include an agreement with the opposition party, or a law to eliminate certain behaviors.   Two examples of “difficult” ethical issues are corporate campaign contributions and political patronage jobs.

Corporate Campaign Contributions

Corporate campaign contributions are corrupt by nature.  Corporate campaign contributions violate the core premise of the code of ethics to avoid any conflict of interest, or the appearance of a conflict of interest.  It would be best to prohibit all corporate donations, but if the Democrats acted unilaterally, the funding advantage to the Republican party would cause Democrats to lose elections and all of the progressive agenda. 

One possible solution would be “blind” campaign contributions, if adopted by both sides of the aisle.  The true nature of corporate campaign contributions would be revealed, if these contributions were required to be anonymous.  I suspect that corporate campaign contributions would fall substantially if all corporate campaign contributions were given without an identification of the donating party.

Political Patronage Jobs

Political patronage jobs are part of the meat-and-potatoes of American politics, but the process is corrupt.  Patronage jobs are the quid-pro-quo for support of a candidate during a campaign.  This practice is explicitly a violation of ethical principles.   Supporters may have given campaign contributions, service hours, or campaign organization; the job is the reward.  At the highest levels, it seems that ambassadorships are given to the highest bidder in presidential campaigns.  Both parties participate in distributing patronage jobs. 

The process of distributing patronage jobs serves the interests of the parties, but does not necessarily serve society.  The people appointed to these roles may be unqualified to do the job, and even if they are, better candidates may be available.  The distribution of these jobs at the highest levels should stop immediately, and a process identified to reduce or eliminate the practice entirely in the future.

Conclusion

Corrupt practices are hardest to recognize when they are the ordinary things people do, in the way things have always been done.  We can recognize corrupt practices by asking whether the action creates a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest.  We can recognize corruption when the practice in question requires deception, creates disadvantages for some individuals, or does not serve the broader interests of society. 

By applying clear principles, we can make politics more ethical and successful in serving society.  The Democratic Party needs a code of ethics and a process of enforcement in order to do the right things, to repair the image of the party and to succeed at the polls.  Establishing a reputation as the party of integrity would be an important step toward those goals.

----

References:

Marathon Oil Company Code of Ethics

http://www.marathonoil.com/content/documents/investor_center/corporate_governance/HG020594_Ethics_Book_re-design_spread_view_Final.pdf

The Marathon code of ethics has been revised since I was with the company, unfortunately eliminating references to avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest.  Nevertheless, it covers a lot of ethical issues well.

US News and World Report, summary of Hillary Clinton speaking fees:

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-04-22/heres-who-paid-hillary-clinton-22-million-in-speaking-fees

CNN, summary of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton speaking fees:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/index.html

Hillary Clinton speaking fee income, April 2013 – March 2015: $21,648,000.

Margot Kidder, 2016

https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/ 

https://interactives.ap.org/2016/delegate-tracker/

History of the delegate and superdelegate counts in the 2016 Democratic presidential campaign.