OPINION & EDITORIAL
Ethics dominate election year
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Sarah Howard:
- Public TV rejects Greens (October 13, 2006)
- Hosty decision affects student papers (September 7, 2005)
- Grant boosts language (October 20, 2006)
- Drop in oil supply demands action (September 13, 2005)
- UW aid looms over race (October 27, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Bill could reduce state ethical lapses (November 10, 2005)
- Civil unions vital (September 29, 2006)
- Readers bust some heads (October 13, 2006)
- Deregulation of campaigns vital (March 29, 2007)
- Senate Bill 1 vital (March 21, 2006)
by Sarah Howard
Friday, October 6, 2006
When the talking heads announced in July that ethics would play a major role in political campaigns this season, it seemed an unlikely focus. With a deficit of historical proportions, an unpopular war and marriage amendments dominating headlines, there simply wasn't room or time.
Yet here we are just weeks before the midterm elections, and it appears those heads knew what they were talking about. Politicians from both parties have entered the ethical debate, though few on terms they would have chosen. This summer in Washington, Democrats took heat for Rep. William Jefferson's shady financial dealings. Now it's the Republican's turn, as they pinch their noses and wade through Rep. Foley's illicit e-mail trail.
Things are hardly different in Wisconsin. In the early days of his campaign, Rep. Mark Green tried to make ethics reform a centerpiece, especially criticizing Governor Jim Doyle's motives when awarding state contacts. But then the State Elections Board came down with a hard-hitting decision that turned the ethical spotlight on Green. Now, he's fighting to defend his financial record and personal integrity. Not surprisingly, he's not alone as even staffers are getting dragged in front of the ethics bull's-eye.
Just this week, Doyle Chief of Staff Susan Goodwin came under the ethical fire of the Michigan-based interest group "All Children Matter." Regardless of the truth of their ad's content, the group succeeded in outraging the Doyle camp, and the episode appears to be heading toward a lawsuit.
In response to questions about possible defamation charges, a spokesperson for Green said that his campaign would have been willing to prosecute the group had Doyle agreed to sign a clean campaign pledge earlier this year. But no pledge was signed, and therefore, we can expect the mudslinging to continue unapologetically.
In this kind of political climate, it's hard for either candidate to make any kind of credible comment about ethical conduct. In fact, from the average voter's perspective, ethics reform has devolved into a topic that politicians give lip service to, when the other guy screws up. It is not so much a campaign promise as a tactic — one verbal weapon among many in each candidate's political arsenal.
The danger in this approach is that plans for ethics reform fade from the spotlight after the election, when real changes could potentially occur. With the keys to the capitol in hand, politicians are very unlikely to talk about ethics. They feel that after weathering intense ethical scrutiny during the election season, they have earned the right to drop the discussion until the next election rolls around.
After all, resuscitating the issue would mean voluntarily subjecting oneself and one's staff to a deluge of questioning at best, and career-threatening criticism at worst. So unfortunately, the ethics issue gets put on the shelf, forgotten until it can be invoked against a future opponent in an election that seems far away. This year though, maybe more than ever, Wisconsin can't let that happen.
If residents ignore the issue, it's likely politicians will, to the detriment of all. This year has been a classic case of money adulterating the election process and influencing political conduct in office. Fellow politicians, journalists and everyday citizens have a demanding role to play in ensuring that the money trail is a straight and narrow path and that each public official navigates it honestly while in office.
Wisconsin must demand full disclosure and urge politicians to work toward clearer ethical standards for public officials. If they do, the state will see more robust and meaningful guidelines in the future. The reward could be a cleaner, fairer and less exhausting election season for all next time around. Then maybe ethics will cease to be a catch phrase, but a topic worthy of each candidate's time and every voter's evaluation.
Sarah Howard (smhoward@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in journalism and political science.
Anonymous (October 6, 2006 @ 7:16am):
If you think there will ever be ethics in politics, you probably still overlook the fact that a man the size of Santa could never possibly fit down your chimney.
Our society rewards those who take risks, often illegal risks, and are smart enough to not get caught. Once you're caught, you have to 'fess up and take it like a champ.
Mark Green's fight to get his $400K back is sickening; I would have more respect for him if he told us he didn't need that money to beat Doyle anyway. Burning a $100 bill to light a cigar would have added a nice bad-ass touch... that opportunity's long gone.
We don't need more ethics in politics, we need more politicians with a set of the proverbial "balls."
