Political campaigns have always been characterized by deceptive and sleazy practices. In 1884, President Grover Cleveland was subjected to political cartoons prepared by opponents which crudely alleged he had fathered a child out of wedlock. But since it's naive to think politicians will avoid deceptive tactics, it's largely up to voters to be skeptical and critical. Ethicist John J. McCall, Ph.D., says: “We might say that if we fail in that, we get what we deserve."
He explains one of the reasons political advertising has degenerated to such a low standard is because the Supreme Court has consistently treated ‘campaign communications’ as protected speech under the First Amendment. Conversely, the Court regulates ‘commercial’ speech for engaging in misleading or deceptive practices.
“What exacerbates the difficulty is that the Court has also ruled that donations to political advertisements by 529s constitute constitutionally protected speech," explains McCall, director of the Pedro Arrupe Center for Business Ethics at Saint Joseph’s University. “There is now essentially unlimited funding behind corrupt advertising practices.”
"This has corrupted political discourse and democratic expression. These deceptive practices are leading to increased cynicism, and, in turn, voter disengagement and non-participation.”
Because the law allows deceptive tactics, McCall sees non-legal ethical standards as a bulwark against inappropriate behavior.
"As voters, we need to think about whether or not we want to vote for a candidate who feels little compunction about deceiving to gain power," he says. "Won't this same candidate also be willing to deceive to retain and exercise power as well?”
John J. McCall, Ph.D. is the director of the Pedro Arrupe Center for Business Ethics and professor of philosophy and management at Saint Joseph's University. McCall can be reached for comment at jmmcall@sju.edu, 610-660-1545 or by calling University Communications at 610-660-1222.