A Challenge to Public Administration:
Better Campaigns for Better Governance
by Ingrid W. Reed
The expertise of public administrators is needed to improve both campaign conduct and campaign finance. Most importantly, achieving a better process for deciding who governs will contribute to rebuilding public trust in government. In addition, open and responsible campaigns are likely to create a more constructive atmosphere for officials and administrators to effectively conduct the public's business.
Electing our representatives is the key element of our democracy. For the process to have integrity, campaigns must engage the public and address salient issues and candidate qualifications. It is imperative that citizens have adequate information to make a decision, and feel that participation is meaningful.
Citizen attitudes about candidates for public office and media interpretation of political campaigns have an indisputable effect on our system of governance. Public administrators, implementers of public policies, have a large stake in the system's continuing vitality. The skills, knowledge, and insight of these professionals are needed to reshape informal and formal processes guiding our campaigns.
Public administrators, like the general public, can attest to the fact that American political campaigns have a reputation for being colorful and hard-hitting, even deceptive and dishonorable. Campaigns have become increasingly objectionable in recent years due to the application of advanced technology, sophisticated media presentations, a proliferation of carpetbagger-type campaign consultants, and the weakening of party organizations. Citizens are turning away in increasing numbers from the dominant mode of "negative" campaigning.
Initiatives to reform campaign conduct and financing demand the talent and experience that public administrators bring to the management of public policy and programs, as demonstrated in the following examples. It is interesting to note that in these three states where reform efforts are underway, institutions committed to public service through research and education play a significant role.
In Maine in 1996, a Code of Election Ethics designed to "encourage issue-oriented electoral campaigns...which will educate the Maine voter and help to improve the quality of dialogue about public policy" was co-sponsored by the Margaret Chase Smith Center for Public Policy at the University of Maine in Orono, the Margaret Chase Smith Library in Skowhegan, and the Institute for Global Ethics in Camden. The ten candidates for federal office in 1996 signed the Code, after which it was printed in a colorful poster and distributed throughout the state. Campaigns were run better than might have been expected without the Code, although not all negative or attack campaigning was eliminated. The issue of enforcement remains a major challenge.
In Minnesota, an initiative called the Compact had an even broader purpose: "to raise the level of political discourse in Minnesota elections." Conceived as a nonpartisan educational project, the Compact was organized by the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota and grew out of an opinion column in the Minneapolis, Minnesota Star-Tribune. In the 1996 elections, six civic organizations with leadership from former elected officials pursued reforms in four areas: debates, candidate advertisements, the role of journalists, and citizen participation. Observers agree that the Compact began to change the campaign climate in Minnesota, but needs to be maintained in order to achieve its ambitious goals.
In New Jersey, Governor Christine Whitman asked the Eagleton Institute of Politics, which has a 40-year commitment to government related research, education, and public service, to consider ways to improve campaigns after a particularly nasty and expensive Senate race in 1996. The Institute responded by organizing a Campaign Forum to address this challenge. A series of seminars led to a discussion among 28 prominent New Jersey political and civic leaders to address improving the state's campaigns -- for two hours before an audience of 200 and the New Jersey Network television cameras. The resulting "gentleperson's" agreement to implement the following six measures for better campaigns appears to have positively influenced the 1997 Governor's race:
The recent New Jersey gubernatorial campaign confirms that it is possible to run more constructive campaigns in the state. As in Maine and Minnesota, the challenge is to build on the initial effort in order to influence future campaigns.
These three state initiatives are collaborative efforts not rooted in law. Legislation has, however, been proposed in a number of states to determine candidate and party conduct, although it is of arguable constitutionality. Passage of such legislation would mean providing public administrators with an important role in designing and overseeing implementing mechanisms.
Improving American elections by focusing on the content and style of campaign discourse is important. However, it is the impact of money on politics that receives the greatest criticism, the most debate and action in state legislatures, and despite inaction in Washington, generates continuous outspoken and effective grass roots attention. According to a USA Today cover story (May 2-4, 1997), 26 states are currently entertaining campaign finance reform bills.
The findings in a book by Michael Malbin and Thomas Gais of SUNY's Rockefeller Institute of Government, The Day After Reform: Sobering Campaign Finance Lessons from the American States, reveal a major challenge to public administration: the laws covering campaign funding disclosure have become more numerous and complex, while budgets for state agencies to carry them out have not increased. Malbin and Gais also assert that it is irresponsible to rely on non-governmental organizations and the media to explain these laws, and call upon legislators to consider how they can be implemented effectively. In their words, a poorly implemented law in this field "may as well be no law at all."
Campaign financing and conduct may seem too "political" for public administrators, but these issues are part of a process the public administration profession serves, and they present problems that the profession is suited to solve. Public administrators are often confronted with a mis-match of objectives and resources. Their training prepares them (1) to work in an environment which lacks adequate means to provide citizens access to government information, (2) for the challenges of trying to implement vaguely worded legislation, and (3) to search for common ground among diverse interests in trying to address public needs.
Civic initiatives deserve the attention of public administrators; failure to apply their expertise to the design and management of reform proposals diminishes their status as professionals. More broadly, it contributes to undermining the public trust in responsive and competent governance that is essential for our democracy to thrive.
From IPA Report, Fall 1998
Ingrid W. Reed, Member of the IPA Board of Trustees, is Director of the Eagleton New Jersey Project at Rutgers University's Eagleton Institute of Politics. Ms. Reed has been actively involved in strategic management and planning for state and local government in New Jersey for twenty years. A version of this paper was originally presented at this year's Spring National Academy of Public Administration meeting on Governance, Accountability and Citizens.