In a May 11, 2010 guest column in Roll Call, titled "Mistrust Unavoidable in Grass-Roots Efforts," (subscription required) Amy Showalter and Kelton Rhoads asserted that efforts among grassroots practitioners to develop a "code of ethics" or "code of conduct" were unnecessary.

CMF has been working on this issue for several years. Through extensive research, we believe that it is possible for grassroots advocacy campaigns that adhere to a voluntary code of ethics to engender the trust that the vast majority of them deserve. Perhaps the biggest benefit of a code of ethics would be the ability for ethical, best-practice practitioners to distinguish themselves and their campaigns from those that seek to influence policy at any cost, ethical or not.

Below is the text of a letter sent to Roll Call's editor in response. (The letter appeared in Roll Call on 5/24.)

May 12, 2010

Dear Roll Call Editor:

In their May 11 column, 'Mistrust Unavoidable in Grass-Roots Efforts' Amy Showalter and Kelton Rhoads take issue with a draft code of ethics put out for public comment by a group of respected grassroots practitioners, academics - including George Washington University - and the Congressional Management Foundation.

While agreeing with the idea of ethical behavior among professionals, their main argument seems to rest on the idea that standards will limit free speech and could be used to unfair advantage by 'those in power.'

In actuality, a core reason to adopt a code is to make sure constituents are the ones with power and that they can continue to communicate with Members of Congress in a free, transparent, and effective manner, unclouded by suspicion engendered by the actions of a small minority of unethical or misinformed grassroots consultants and practitioners. Ms. Showalter and Mr. Rhodes cite some of those practices in their column and, though rare, they contribute to a general mistrust on Capitol Hill about the authenticity of grassroots advocacy campaigns. In a 2005 survey of House and Senate offices, CMF found that 76% of congressional staff had at least a moderate level of distrust of the authenticity of form communications. And there is no reason to believe that attitude has changed dramatically.

Guidelines for ethical conduct serve to convey to both practitioners and the public the standards for a profession. The standards we and others propose are based on the principles of legitimacy, authenticity, relevance, transparency, civility and honesty. We are all committed to a representational system of government where everyone has a voice. To that end, CMF has launched a new research center, the Partnership for a More Perfect Union, to foster the genuine and meaningful exchange of ideas between Members and citizens by conducting research and education, promoting best practices, and creating innovative tools for everyone with a stake in our American experiment.

We invite everyone to read and comment on the proposed standards at www.gspm.org/ethics or to go to www.pmpu.org to learn about the work of the Partnership. Everyone benefits when the lines of communication between Congress and citizens are open and mutually responsive.

Sincerely,
Beverly BellExecutive Director
Congressional Management Foundation