Saturday, June 10, 2000

By Brad Rourke

Nothing seems to rile folks up more than the idea of a bunch of fat cats buying an election. More and more people seem disgusted by the spectacle of wealth cozying up to political campaigns and crassly buying "access," while the issues that people care about get ignored.

To many, it seems that political donors don’t care what their money pays for. As more and more money flows into the system, the TV ads just get worse and worse.

However, a bipartisan poll released this week reveals that political donors are fed up, too. With Democrat Celinda Lake and Republican John Deardourff, we at the Project on Campaign Conduct asked the people who are footing the bill for today’s campaigns how they feel about campaigns. Are they indifferent to what their money buys? Or are they as dissatisfied as everyone else with escalating personal attacks and substance-free discourse?

Political donors clearly share the public’s concerns with the way political campaigns are moving. In fact, 59 percent of contributors believe that, in terms of ethics and values, election campaigns have become worse in the last 20 years. That number is close to the percentage from a poll of the general public - 53 percent of whom agree with the statement.

But there is good news for democracy: Contributors, like other people, have a moral compass when it comes to political discourse. Seventy-six percent of them believe attack-oriented campaigns are wrong. The majority, 54 percent, believe candidates for elected office twist the truth, and 29 percent believe candidates routinely lie.

Amidst the concern, however, there is also optimism. People who give to political campaigns are in many ways less cynical than the public at large. This is clearest in the dramatic divergence of opinion on the trustworthiness of elected officials. Sixty-three percent of donors disagree with the statement that "elected officials can’t be trusted to do what’s right," while 70 percent of the voters agree.

This overall difference of opinion stands to reason: People who give to the system must fundamentally believe in it. In fact, while 72 percent of Americans agree with the statement "people run for office because they want to serve their country or community" (this finding from our November 1999 Civic Values Survey of 800 American adults), a significantly greater share of contributors - 86 percent - agree. Political donors see political candidates as generally good people pursuing a worthy goal.

Donors are also more willing than the public at large to tolerate a certain amount of debate and argument in political campaigning.

88 percent of donors think it’s fair for a candidate to criticize another for his or her voting record, compared to only 58 percent of the general public.

75 percent think it’s OK to criticize an opponent for taking money from people with ethical problems (58 percent of the public found this practice fair).

68 percent think it’s OK to criticize an opponent for his or her business practices (56 percent of the public found this behavior fair).

But the public at large and donors agree on the types of criticisms that are unfair. Everyone is clear that it’s generally unfair to make a campaign issue out of and criticize an opponent for: marital infidelity; using illegal drugs such as cocaine as a young adult; the personal lives of their party leaders; and the behavior of their family.

What do these results mean? It means that political donors see the same limits on decent behavior that the rest of us do, only they also see a more important role for political debate and argument.

Political donors aren’t reveling cynically in the mudfest that has too often become today’s politics - instead, they are standing by, ready to penalize those who cross the line.

They are ready to reward candidates who stick to the high road. They believe voluntary codes of conduct governing campaigns are a good idea: 61 percent support the concept. Almost half, 48 percent, report that they are more likely to give money to a candidate who signs such a code. �

Rourke is vice president for public policy at the Institute for Global Ethics and director of its Project on Campaign Conduct. The IGE poll of 600 donors included 200 donors of $200 to $500; 200 donors of $500 and more; 100 donors to business PACs, 50 donors to labor PACs; 50 donors to trial lawyer PACs.