The Ethical Responsibility of a Local Party Committee
Local party committees have a great deal of power. Most of the people
we vote for have been selected and, where allowed by law, endorsed by
local party committees. Most of the people who are appointed to boards
and commmissions have also been approved by local party committees. In
most places, they determine who runs our communities.<br>
<br>
One of the principal roles a political party has, at least in theory, is
assuring the public that its candidates have been screened in some
valuable way. Anyone can put her name on a ballot, but what do we know
about her? Can we know if she is competent, decent, sane? If she has
been approved by a party, people have met her, worked with her, asked
her questions. The question is, Does a political party have a
responsibility to choose candidates who are ethical? Or, to put it the
other way, what is the responsibility of a political party when someone
it chooses acts unethically, not in a minor way, but in a serious way?<br>
<br>
This issue got into my mind due to the decision of Colorado's
Republican party chair not to run for re-election, and his stated
reason for this decision. According to <a href="http://www.coloradostatesman.com/content/992573-wadhams-quits-bid-third…; target="”_blank”">an
article
in the Colorado <i>Statesman</i> on Friday</a>, he said that he is
“tired of those who are obsessed with seeing conspiracies around every
corner and who have terribly misguided notions of what the role of the
state party is." He also felt these "nuts," as he called them, had lost
the party too many elections.<br>
<br>
The chair's concern is not about ethics, of course, but about the
competence and sanity of selected candidates. Although he seems more
concerned about losing elections, he at least seems willing to resign
rather than misuse his prestige to support candidates he feels are
unfit for office.<br>
<br>
<b>The Ethics Power of Local Party Committees</b><br>
Let's take this down to the local level. A city has a terrible ethics
environment. Elected officials are giving their friends (and each
other) no-bid contracts, the budget is a bunch of lies, citizens are
intimidated if they speak up. What is the responsibility of the
political party in power for what is happening?<br>
<br>
All the party has to do is remove its support from one candidate and publicly say why, and
the game will be over. Even discussing this possibility openly
would be big news, and would move the city toward dealing with its
problems rather than denying them.<br>
<br>
The tendency for any group is to circle the wagons when things go
wrong. This is especially true of a group whose principal purpose is to
obtain and retain power. Anything that might jeopardize its hold on
power is very difficult to do, even if everyone realizes it is the
responsible thing to do.<br>
<br>
<b>Party Codes of Ethics</b><br>
Here is where laws are worthless. No law is going to make party
committees responsible for the candidates they endorse. Companies are
responsible for their product endorsements, but this does not extend to
politics. This doesn't mean that party endorsements are worthless, only
that those who make them are generally unwilling to admit that they
were wrong, and do something about it. I don't think we need laws on
this, but I do think we need party codes of ethics.<br>
<br>
Such things do exist, although they take very different forms. The kind
I'm talking about is exemplified by the code of ethics in the <a href="http://www.co.middlesex.nj.us/elections/MCRO%20By-Laws.pdf" target="”_blank”">Middlesex
County,
NJ Republican Party bylaws</a> (p. 5). It actually sets rules
for officeholders and candidates. There are basic conflict of interest
and gift provisions for elected and appointed officials. There is a
provision that does not allow the endorsement of indicted candidates
and, if they have been endorsed already, the removal of support, both
financial and otherwise. There is even a provision whereby any official
who is indicted is expected to seek a speedy trial. Unfortunately, none
of this applies to unethical conduct short of criminal indictment. But
it shows at least some concern for the public and some responsibility
for endorsed officials.<br>
<br>
More typical are party codes of ethics that apply only to party
officials' conflicts of interests. Such codes of ethics do not apply to
or require the party to take any responsibility for officials or
candidates. Typical is the <a href="http://www.digitalvictorycms.com/_uploaded/324865-code_of_ethics.pdf&qu…; target="”_blank”">Republican
Party
of Illinois' central committee code of ethics</a>.<br>
<br>
<b>Party Oaths</b><br>
The most extreme code I found, in terms of not taking responsibility
for officials and candidates in the party, is the Republican Party of
Florida's Oath of Party Loyalty and Ethical Conduct (attached; see
below). The code of ethics part does require not only ethical conduct,
but the reporting of unethical conduct by party officers. But only party officers. The oath part
emphasizes how much the ethical requirements do not apply to officials and candidates who
are not party officers:<ul>
I, ___________________________, hereby swear or affirm that during my
term of office:<br>
a. In a partisan general election in which the Republican Party has a
candidate, I will not actively, publicly, or financially support the
election of any candidate other than the Republican Party’s nominee;<br>
<br>
b. In a non-partisan election (other than a judicial election) in which
a registered Republican is participating, I will not actively,
publicly, or financially support the election of any candidate other
than a registered Republican;</ul>
This is a party-do-or-die oath. If the party nominee is unfit for the
job, local party officers can't support anyone else. And since pointing
out the unfitness would be support of other candidates, this puts the
party officer in a serious conflict position: let the public know
what you know and resign, or protect yourself by hurting the public.<br>
<br>
This is not a Republican Party thing. The Maryland Democratic Party has
a similar provision in <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/24952559/Maryland-Democratic-Party-By-Laws&qu…; target="”_blank”">its
bylaws</a>, but it goes further by expressly making support for
non-Democratic candidates grounds for disqualification and removal
(Article III.6a).<br>
<br>
<b>A Party's Responsibility</b><br>
Of course, an official who has done something horrible is likely to be
dumped because he might lose. But how often is an unethical candidate
who could win ever dumped by his party? After all, officials have been
elected while in prison, with the endorsement of their party. But at
least most people know this. It's when people don't know that parties
have the greatest reponsibility to disclose what they know.<br>
<br>
A party committee's responsibility is also greater in a city or county
dominated by one party, that is, where the primary is the major
election. In such places, there is no question of losing party control.
It's all about the power plays within the party.<br>
<br>
I realize that this is a dream. No one can expect a party to disclose
the wrongs its officers know have been committed. But then they should
also not argue that one of their purposes is to screen candidates.
Saying this gives them an obligation to actually do it.<br>
<br>
If local party committees play the role they do, they should be held to
some responsibility for their actions. At the very least, an ethics
code's<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/full-text-model-ethics-code#0.1_TOC49…; target="”_blank”">
complicity and knowledge provision</a> could be applied to them as well
as to government officials and employees. But it would be best if they
would embrace this responsibility themselves and support their
inclusion in local ethics programs.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---