MRSA Tit. 21A § 1101

APPENDIX A

A FRAMEWORK FOR ETHICAL DECISION MAKING

FROM THE MARKKULA CENTER FOR APPLIED ETHICS

We all have an image of our better selves-of how we are when we act ethically or are "at our best." We probably also have an image of what an ethical community, an ethical business, an ethical government, or an ethical society should be. Ethics really has to do with all these levels-acting ethically as individuals, creating ethical organizations and governments, and making our society as a whole ethical in the way it treats everyone.

What is Ethics?

Simply stated, ethics refers to standards of behavior that tell us how human beings ought to act in the many situations in which they find themselves-as friends, parents, children, citizens, businesspeople, teachers, professionals, and so on.

It is helpful to identify what ethics is NOT:

• Ethics is not the same as feelings. Feelings provide important information for our ethical choices. Some people have highly developed habits that make them feel bad when they do something wrong, but many people feel good even though they are doing something wrong. And often our feelings will tell us it is uncomfortable to do the right thing if it is hard.
• Ethics is not religion. Many people are not religious, but ethics applies to everyone. Most religions do advocate high ethical standards but sometimes do not address all the types of problems we face.
• Ethics is not following the law. A good system of law does incorporate many ethical standards, but law can deviate from what is ethical. Law can become ethically corrupt, as some totalitarian regimes have made it. Law can be a function of power alone and designed to serve the interests of narrow groups. Law may have a difficult time designing or enforcing standards in some important areas, and may be slow to address new problems.
• Ethics is not following culturally accepted norms. Some cultures are quite ethical, but others become corrupt -or blind to certain ethical concerns (as the United States was to slavery before the Civil War). "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is not a satisfactory ethical standard.
• Ethics is not science. Social and natural science can provide important data to help us make better ethical choices. But science alone does not tell us what we ought to do. Science may provide an explanation for what humans are like. But ethics provides reasons for how humans ought to act. And just because something is scientifically or technologically possible, it may not be ethical to do it.

Why Identifying Ethical Standards is Hard

There are two fundamental problems in identifying the ethical standards we are to follow:

1. On what do we base our ethical standards?
2. How do those standards get applied to specific situations we face?

If our ethics are not based on feelings, religion, law, accepted social practice, or science, what are they based on? Many philosophers and ethicists have helped us answer this critical question. They have suggested at least five different sources of ethical standards we should use.

Five Sources of Ethical Standards

The Utilitarian Approach    
Some ethicists emphasize that the ethical action is the one that provides the most good or does the least harm, or, to put it another way, produces the greatest balance of good over harm. The ethical corporate action, then, is the one that produces the greatest good and does the least harm for all who are affected-customers, employees, shareholders, the community, and the environment. Ethical warfare balances the good achieved in ending terrorism with the harm done to all parties through death, injuries, and destruction. The utilitarian approach deals with consequences; it tries both to increase the good done and to reduce the harm done.

The Rights Approach    
Other philosophers and ethicists suggest that the ethical action is the one that best protects and respects the moral rights of those affected. This approach starts from the belief that humans have a dignity based on their human nature per se or on their ability to choose freely what they do with their lives. On the basis of such dignity, they have a right to be treated as ends and not merely as means to other ends. The list of moral rights -including the rights to make one's own choices about what kind of life to lead, to be told the truth, not to be injured, to a degree of privacy, and so on-is widely debated; some now argue that non-humans have rights, too. Also, it is often said that rights imply duties-in particular, the duty to respect others' rights.

The Fairness or Justice Approach    
Aristotle and other Greek philosophers have contributed the idea that all equals should be treated equally. Today we use this idea to say that ethical actions treat all human beings equally-or if unequally, then fairly based on some standard that is defensible. We pay people more based on their harder work or the greater amount that they contribute to an organization, and say that is fair. But there is a debate over CEO salaries that are hundreds of times larger than the pay of others; many ask whether the huge disparity is based on a defensible standard or whether it is the result of an imbalance of power and hence is unfair.

The Common Good Approach    
The Greek philosophers have also contributed the notion that life in community is a good in itself and our actions should contribute to that life. This approach suggests that the interlocking relationships of society are the basis of ethical reasoning and that respect and compassion for all others-especially the vulnerable-are requirements of such reasoning. This approach also calls attention to the common conditions that are important to the welfare of everyone. This may be a system of laws, effective police and fire departments, health care, a public educational system, or even public recreational areas.

The Virtue Approach    
A very ancient approach to ethics is that ethical actions ought to be consistent with certain ideal virtues that provide for the full development of our humanity. These virtues are dispositions and habits that enable us to act according to the highest potential of our character and on behalf of values like truth and beauty. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, tolerance, love, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues. Virtue ethics asks of any action, "What kind of person will I become if I do this?" or "Is this action consistent with my acting at my best?"

Putting the Approaches Together

Each of the approaches helps us determine what standards of behavior can be considered ethical. There are still problems to be solved, however.

The first problem is that we may not agree on the content of some of these specific approaches. We may not all agree to the same set of human and civil rights.

We may not agree on what constitutes the common good. We may not even agree on what is a good and what is a harm.

The second problem is that the different approaches may not all answer the question "What is ethical?" in the same way. Nonetheless, each approach gives us important information with which to determine what is ethical in a particular circumstance. And much more often than not, the different approaches do lead to similar answers.

Making Decisions

Making good ethical decisions requires a trained sensitivity to ethical issues and a practiced method for exploring the ethical aspects of a decision and weighing the considerations that should impact our choice of a course of action. Having a method for ethical decision making is absolutely essential. When practiced regularly, the method becomes so familiar that we work through it automatically without consulting the specific steps.

The more novel and difficult the ethical choice we face, the more we need to rely on discussion and dialogue with others about the dilemma. Only by careful exploration of the problem, aided by the insights and different perspectives of others, can we make good ethical choices in such situations.

We have found the following framework for ethical decision making a useful method for exploring ethical dilemmas and identifying ethical courses of action.

 Recognize an Ethical Issue

1. Could this decision or situation be damaging to someone or to some group? Does this decision involve a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two "goods" or between two "bads"?
2. Is this issue about more than what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?

Get the Facts

3. What are the relevant facts of the case? What facts are not known? Can I learn more about the situation? Do I know enough to make a decision?
4. What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome? Are some concerns more important? Why?
5. What are the options for acting? Have all the relevant persons and groups been consulted? Have I identified creative options?
6.  

Evaluate Alternative Actions

7. Evaluate the options by asking the following questions:

• Which option will produce the most good and do the least harm? (The Utilitarian Approach)
• Which option best respects the rights of all who have a stake? (The Rights Approach)
• Which option treats people equally or proportionately? (The Justice Approach)
• Which option best serves the community as a whole, not just some members?     
  (The Common Good Approach)
• Which option leads me to act as the sort of person I want to be? (The Virtue Approach)

Make a Decision and Test It

8. Considering all these approaches, which option best addresses the situation?
9. If I told someone I respect-or told a television audience-which option I have chosen, what would they say?

Act and Reflect on the Outcome

10. How can my decision be implemented with the greatest care and attention to the concerns of all stakeholders?
11. How did my decision turn out and what have I learned from this specific situation?

APPENDIX B

CODES OF CAMPAIGN CONDUCT

AAPC Code of Professional Ethics

As a member of the American Association of Political Consultants, I believe there are certain standards of practice which I must maintain. I, therefore, pledge to adhere to the following Code of Professional Ethics:

1. I will not indulge in any activity which would corrupt or degrade the practice of political consulting.

2. I will treat my colleagues and clients with respect and never intentionally injure their professional or personal reputations.

3. I will respect the confidence of my clients and not reveal confidential or privileged information obtained during our professional relationship.

4. I will use no appeal to voters which is based on racism, sexism, religious intolerance or any form of unlawful discrimination and will condemn those who use such practices. In turn, I will work for equal voting rights and privileges for all citizens.

5. I will refrain from false or misleading attacks on an opponent or member of his or her family and will do everything in my power to prevent others from using such tactics. 6. I will document accurately and fully any criticism of an opponent or his or her record.

7. I will be honest in my relationship with the news media and candidly answer questions when I have the authority to do so.

8. I will use any funds I receive from my clients, or on behalf of my clients, only for those purposes invoiced in writing.

9. I will not support any individual or organization which resorts to practices forbidden by this code.

_________________________________ Signature

_________________________________ Date

Michigan Republican Party Campaign Code of Conduct

Every candidate for public office has an obligation to observe and uphold certain basic principles of decency, honesty and fair play. In order to demonstrate the commitment of the Republican Party to these principles, and in the spirit of President Reagan’s famous 11^th Commandment “Thou shalt not speak ill of fellow Republicans”, this Code of Conduct is set forth for all candidates seeking the Republican nomination for federal, state, and local elective office in the State of Michigan. This Code of Conduct shall also apply to the chair of a political committee in support or opposition to a question of public policy.

I will conduct my campaign openly and publicly, and limit charges against my opponent^* to legitimate challenges regarding his or her opinions, record, qualifications, experience, conduct, and past positions held.

I will at all times tell the truth, with documentation from legitimate, verifiable sources for any charges I make against my opponent.

I will not use or condone any misrepresentations, distortions, malicious untruths, unfounded accusations or innuendos about my opponent or my opponent’s family.

I will neither use nor permit any appeal to bigotry based on a candidate’s race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion or national origin.

I will not undertake or condone any dishonest or unethical practice that tends to corrupt or undermine our American system of free elections or that hampers or prevents the full and free expression of the will of the voters.

I will defend and uphold the right of every qualified and duly registered Michigan voter to full and equal participation in the electoral process.

I will immediately and publicly repudiate any use by others of methods and tactics that I have pledged not to use or condone. I will do everything possible to ensure that those supporting my candidacy adhere to the principles outlined in this Code, and I shall dismiss any subordinate who violates any provision of this Code or the laws governing elections.

If I am not successful in my candidacy, I will not actively, publicly, or financially do anything that in any way will jeopardize the candidacy of the Republican nominee.

I will participate in unity events. I will endorse and support the ticket.

I will at all times adhere to both the letter and spirit of the law and this Code of Conduct.

I, the undersigned, do hereby accept the Michigan Republican Party Campaign Code of Conduct and agree to adhere to its principles and conduct my campaign accordingly.

___________________         ________________

Signature                            Date

_____________________________________

Office Sought or Name of Political Committee

INSTITUTE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

PLEDGE OF FAIR CAMPAIGN PRACTICES

There are basic principles of honesty, fairness, responsibility and respect to which every candidate for public office should adhere in order to worthy of the public office that that candidate seeks. Candidates who fall short of adhering to such principles alienate the public from the electoral process and erode the public’s trust and confidence in the offices that those candidates seek. THEREFORE, as a candidate for public office, I pledge to conform my campaign to the following principles

1. General. My campaign for public office will adhere to principles of honesty, fairness, responsibility and respect. My campaign communications will present only fair, relevant and truthful information to the voters for their consideration of my candidacy and those of my opponents.

2. Fairness. The timing of my communications will be such that my opponents will have a meaningful opportunity to respond to any claims I make concerning their positions or qualifications to hold office. I will not take advantage of any position I hold in the public, private or nonprofit sectors to pressure people to support my candidacy with either campaign contributions or other election help.

3. Relevance. Irrelevant information includes appeals to prejudices based on race, sex, sexual preferences, religion, national origin, physical health status, or age, as well as information concerning the candidate’s family.

4. Truthfulness. I will present my positions and record candidly and forthrightly, so that the voters can judge my candidacy for office. I will document all assertions my campaign makes in campaign communications.

5. Responsibility. I support full participation the electoral process and will take no action to discourage such participation. I will immediately and publicly repudiate those who take actions that either help my candidacy or hurt my opponents’ candidacy which are inconsistent with this pledge of campaign conduct.

6. Respect. I will treat my opponents with courtesy and civility, even when we disagree about what is best for voters served by the office I seek.

___________________ ___________________

Candidate’s Signature              Date

(http://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/resources__ILG_Pledge_of_Fair_Campaign_Practices.pdf)

APPENDIX C

A NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF ETHICAL QUESTIONS

YOU MIGHT FACE ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

(From the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at SCU.EDU/Ethics)

Ethical Dilemmas Involving Honesty

• Are you truthful about your record, background, and accomplishments?
• Are you truthful about your opponent's record, background, accomplishments, or malfeasance?
• Do you ensure that campaign staff, consultants, surrogates, or others speaking on your behalf are always truthful?
• Do you imply endorsements where none have been given?
• Do you Photoshop images to enhance messages that are not entirely truthful?
• Are you honest about what you can and will do once in office?
• Do you deceive the public by using push polling to deliver campaign messages under the guise of legitimate research?
• Are you honest about the signatures you have gathered?
• Do you report truthfully on all campaign reports?
• Are you honest about your relationships with Independent Expenditure Groups?
• Are your answers on political questionnaires consistent?

Ethical Dilemmas Involving Fairness

• Even if an allegation against an opponent is true, is it fair under the circumstances. For example did the alleged event occur in the distant past?
• Are you distorting your opponent's voting record by taking a vote out of context? For example, does your opponent have a favorable record on an issue, but voted for a necessary appropriation bill that included a section not favorable on that issue?
• Are negative allegations against your opponent relevant to the office being sought? For example, do allegations against the opponent's family further the political debate or only serve to demean the opponent in the public's view?
• Do you buy up the majority of the available airtime, thus drowning out the voices of your opponents?
• Do you hire more political consultants than necessary thus ensuring that they cannot work for your opponent?
• When making a negative comment about your opponent, do you give your opponent reasonable time to respond, or do you hold information back, planning for an "October surprise?"
• If you are already an officeholder, do you use public resources not available to your opponent? For example, do you use government staff, offices, supplies and/or equipment for political purposes?
• As an office holder do you use governmental meetings as an opportunity to campaign?
• Do you encourage or condone the destruction of your opponent's campaign materials by staff and/or volunteers?
• Do you interfere with the voting process by discouraging voter turnout?

Ethical Dilemmas Involving Transparency

• Do you make all of your responses to special interest questionnaires publicly available?
• Do you disclose all of your donors in compliance with campaign finance regulations?
• Do you disclose financial interests?
• Do you provide your tax returns when asked?
• Do you disclose promises made to donors and supporters?

Ethical Dilemmas Involving Substance

• Have you developed policy positions on the issues facing the electorate?
• Do you provide the public with access to all of your policy positions?
• Do you honor requests to debate?
• Do your allegations about your opponents serve to educate the public about your differences or do they merely serve to attack your opponent?
• Are your political advertisements mere fluff pieces or do they actual inform the voters about your stance on the issues?
• Do you conduct political town hall meetings so your views can be made known?
• Do you stand open to questions from your future constituents?
• Do you respond to emails and other correspondence from voters?
• Do you answer questions from the press and participate in editorial boards?

Ethical Dilemmas Involving Independence

• Do you pre-commit yourself by promising that you will take positions on legislation prior to having the benefit of public hearings and proper governmental deliberation? For example, do you make promises in your responses to campaign questionnaires that bind you to a certain course of action once elected? Do you sign pledges?
• Do you make promises to donors in exchange for contributions?
• Do you make promises to supporters in exchange for endorsements?
• Do you exercise your own judgment when devising policy or do you feel you must be in lockstep with your party in order to get party support?
• Do you take donations from a group that has business before you if you are an incumbent or will likely have business before you should you get elected? For example, if you are running for a seat on the city council, do you take money from developers?

Ethical Dilemmas Involving Campaign Contributions

• As campaign finance laws are designed to eliminate corruption and undue influence, do you follow all pertinent campaign finance laws and regulations?
• If you are given funds in excess of contribution limits, do you return them or do you work with the donor to circumvent the campaign finance rules? For example, do you advise the donor to divide up the funds among family members who then donate to you?
• Do you directly, or indirectly, coordinate with independent groups campaigning on your behalf?
• Do you send former political staffers to work on independent expenditure committees?
• If you are an incumbent do you seek contributions from government staff?
• If you are in business, do you seek contributions for your political campaign from your employees?

(https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/government-ethics/resources/unavoidable-ethical-dilemmas-for-candidates/)

APPENDIX D

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Campaign Legal Center

http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org

Center on Civility & Democratic Engagement

https://gspp.berkeley.edu/centers/ccde

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

https://www.citizensforethics.org

Federal Elections Commission

https://www.fec.gov/

Flack Check

http://flackcheck.org

Maplight

https://maplight.org

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/