Incentivizing Honesty in Politics
(originally posted at Unclaimed Territory)
In my post yesterday, I highlighted the stark difference between the rigid standards that apply to commercial advertising in this country and the ‘anything goes’ nature of political advertising. My primary point was that human nature doesn’t suddenly change when the conversation shifts from shopping to politics, and therefore it’s bizarre that everyone seems to assume that “voters” possess the sort of truth-detection skills that we all know “consumers” do not. Consumers and voters are, after all, the same people, and advertisements are advertisements, regardless of whether they’re selling laxatives or representatives.
Indeed, the robust protections provided to consumers may actually make the problem of false political advertising more acute. As a commenter over at Digby’s points out, many people have internalized the prohibition against false-advertising and simply assume that it applies to political ads as well. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say things like “that ad must be at least technically true or they wouldn’t be allowed to air it.”
We live in an era where the outcomes of elections often hinge on the effectiveness of political advertising. For reasons I discussed in my previous post, however, it is simply not feasible (or advisable) to regulate the truthfulness of political advertising in the same way we regulate the truthfulness of commercial advertising.
But that doesn’t mean we have to resign ourselves to a system that actually encourages deceptive political advertising.
In the realm of commercial speech, we incentivize honesty by punishing dishonesty. Those who mislead consumers face the prospect of stiff fines, high damage awards, injunctions, and even imprisonment depending on the circumstances. It’s a very stick-heavy approach, which is why it raises so many First Amendment concerns when applied to political speech. But good behavior can be encouraged through the use carrots as well as sticks. And therein lies the key to avoiding First Amendment objections: focus less on punishing dishonesty and more on rewarding honesty.
A change of emphasis is also needed. Because consumer protection laws are primarily aimed at businesses and those driven by a desire to make money, they understandably focus on combating dishonestly through the use of economic disincentives. The idea is to create a system where your economic interests are better served by being honest than being deceptive.
But politicians and political parties are driven by a different bottom line. In order to tailor this approach to the political realm, incentives and disincentives have to be political in nature. We need to try to create a system where a candidate’s political interests will be better served by honesty than deception.
The most effective tool for aligning incentives in this way is the media, both new and old. To the extent journalists and bloggers can generate political blowback when a politician lies, politicians will be discouraged from doing so. Unfortunately, our emasculated press corps tends to do the exact opposite. In order to avoid accusations of bias, journalists adhere to a painfully formulaic "dueling narrative" style of journalism which actually encourages dishonesty by giving lies equally billing to the truth. Blogs are a welcome counterweight in this regard and do have some ability to influence media narratives and expose lies and deception. I’m optimistic that as the medium of blogging continues to mature and evolve, blogs will play an increasingly important role in creating the sort of incentive structure necessary to encourage more honest politics.
That said, I believe it will take more than just the media (even the new media) to create the structural incentives necessary to significantly improve the situation. We really need to start thinking outside the box on this issue. We need to think of ways in which legislation and private initiatives can create the sort of incentives necessary to influence the basic political calculus.
What am I talking about? Well, for instance, you’re probably familiar with the provision of the McCain-Feingold bill that requires those sponsoring political ads to indicate who paid for them (“My name is Bob Smith and I approved this message.”) The idea behind the provision was that it would discourage truly sleazy and dishonest ads by making politicians embarrassed to be associated with them. I think the authors of the bill failed to appreciate just how little shame many politicians have, but I’m more concerned with the structure of the provision than the provision itself. The important thing is that the Supreme Court held that this disclosure requirement does not violate the First Amendment. That’s important, because it opens the door to a number of other creative ways of discouraging deceptive politics.
For instance, suppose a state were to pass a law creating some sort of body—perhaps consisting of retired judges—which was empowered to review the truthfulness of political ads. It could be called the “Election Commission” or something similar. To avoid First Amendment concerns, there would be no requirement that ads be submitted to the Commission for review, but there would be a requirement that all ads disclose prominently, ala McCain-Feingold, whether or not the ad has been submitted and approved by the Election Commission (i.e. “this ad has been reviewed for truthfulness by the Election Commission” or “this ad has not been submitted to the Election Commission”).
The Commission would be instructed by law to withhold its blessing of ads which are either false or materially misleading (the same standards that govern commercial advertising). Those seeking approval of ads would submit them, along with an affidavit attesting to and supporting its truthfulness. Preliminary approval could be granted very quickly, within hours. If anyone wished to question the approval, they could submit counter-evidence, which if found to be persuasive, would result in the withdrawal of the Commission’s approval.
While politicians and interest groups would be under no obligation to submit their ads for review, there would be a strong incentive to do so. Those who wish to be taken seriously and viewed as honest would readily submit their ads to the Commission. Those who choose not to submit their ads to the Commission would be free to run them anyway, but would likely pay some political price for doing so. The ads would be looked upon much more skeptically by the public and opposing politicians would likely try to score political points by pointing to the candidate’s unwillingness to seek Commission approval (“What is my opponent so afraid of?”).
Would this sort of legislation really work? It’s hard to know. I’m sure the insightful commenters at this site will point out any number of potential problems with such a plan, perhaps some of them fatal. But I hope this example at least illustrates the sort of proposals I have in mind. We need to think of ways to establish structural incentives that reward honesty and discourage deception. We need to work toward creating a system where politicians see it as being in their best political interest to avoid making false and misleading claims.
I realize that’s an enormously ambitious goal, but even a marginal improvement in the current incentive structure would go a long way toward improving the quality of political discourse in this country. And one of the greatest aspects of our federalist system is that we have 50 laboratories in which to experiment with these kinds of proposals; all it takes is a good idea and a state willing to try it. So I ask you to put aside your cynicism for a moment and really think long and hard about this issue. There have to be creative ways we can come up with to incentivize honesty in politics—even if just a little bit--without running afoul of the First Amendment. That’s my challenge to you (and to myself).
In my post yesterday, I highlighted the stark difference between the rigid standards that apply to commercial advertising in this country and the ‘anything goes’ nature of political advertising. My primary point was that human nature doesn’t suddenly change when the conversation shifts from shopping to politics, and therefore it’s bizarre that everyone seems to assume that “voters” possess the sort of truth-detection skills that we all know “consumers” do not. Consumers and voters are, after all, the same people, and advertisements are advertisements, regardless of whether they’re selling laxatives or representatives.
Indeed, the robust protections provided to consumers may actually make the problem of false political advertising more acute. As a commenter over at Digby’s points out, many people have internalized the prohibition against false-advertising and simply assume that it applies to political ads as well. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say things like “that ad must be at least technically true or they wouldn’t be allowed to air it.”
We live in an era where the outcomes of elections often hinge on the effectiveness of political advertising. For reasons I discussed in my previous post, however, it is simply not feasible (or advisable) to regulate the truthfulness of political advertising in the same way we regulate the truthfulness of commercial advertising.
But that doesn’t mean we have to resign ourselves to a system that actually encourages deceptive political advertising.
In the realm of commercial speech, we incentivize honesty by punishing dishonesty. Those who mislead consumers face the prospect of stiff fines, high damage awards, injunctions, and even imprisonment depending on the circumstances. It’s a very stick-heavy approach, which is why it raises so many First Amendment concerns when applied to political speech. But good behavior can be encouraged through the use carrots as well as sticks. And therein lies the key to avoiding First Amendment objections: focus less on punishing dishonesty and more on rewarding honesty.
A change of emphasis is also needed. Because consumer protection laws are primarily aimed at businesses and those driven by a desire to make money, they understandably focus on combating dishonestly through the use of economic disincentives. The idea is to create a system where your economic interests are better served by being honest than being deceptive.
But politicians and political parties are driven by a different bottom line. In order to tailor this approach to the political realm, incentives and disincentives have to be political in nature. We need to try to create a system where a candidate’s political interests will be better served by honesty than deception.
The most effective tool for aligning incentives in this way is the media, both new and old. To the extent journalists and bloggers can generate political blowback when a politician lies, politicians will be discouraged from doing so. Unfortunately, our emasculated press corps tends to do the exact opposite. In order to avoid accusations of bias, journalists adhere to a painfully formulaic "dueling narrative" style of journalism which actually encourages dishonesty by giving lies equally billing to the truth. Blogs are a welcome counterweight in this regard and do have some ability to influence media narratives and expose lies and deception. I’m optimistic that as the medium of blogging continues to mature and evolve, blogs will play an increasingly important role in creating the sort of incentive structure necessary to encourage more honest politics.
That said, I believe it will take more than just the media (even the new media) to create the structural incentives necessary to significantly improve the situation. We really need to start thinking outside the box on this issue. We need to think of ways in which legislation and private initiatives can create the sort of incentives necessary to influence the basic political calculus.
What am I talking about? Well, for instance, you’re probably familiar with the provision of the McCain-Feingold bill that requires those sponsoring political ads to indicate who paid for them (“My name is Bob Smith and I approved this message.”) The idea behind the provision was that it would discourage truly sleazy and dishonest ads by making politicians embarrassed to be associated with them. I think the authors of the bill failed to appreciate just how little shame many politicians have, but I’m more concerned with the structure of the provision than the provision itself. The important thing is that the Supreme Court held that this disclosure requirement does not violate the First Amendment. That’s important, because it opens the door to a number of other creative ways of discouraging deceptive politics.
For instance, suppose a state were to pass a law creating some sort of body—perhaps consisting of retired judges—which was empowered to review the truthfulness of political ads. It could be called the “Election Commission” or something similar. To avoid First Amendment concerns, there would be no requirement that ads be submitted to the Commission for review, but there would be a requirement that all ads disclose prominently, ala McCain-Feingold, whether or not the ad has been submitted and approved by the Election Commission (i.e. “this ad has been reviewed for truthfulness by the Election Commission” or “this ad has not been submitted to the Election Commission”).
The Commission would be instructed by law to withhold its blessing of ads which are either false or materially misleading (the same standards that govern commercial advertising). Those seeking approval of ads would submit them, along with an affidavit attesting to and supporting its truthfulness. Preliminary approval could be granted very quickly, within hours. If anyone wished to question the approval, they could submit counter-evidence, which if found to be persuasive, would result in the withdrawal of the Commission’s approval.
While politicians and interest groups would be under no obligation to submit their ads for review, there would be a strong incentive to do so. Those who wish to be taken seriously and viewed as honest would readily submit their ads to the Commission. Those who choose not to submit their ads to the Commission would be free to run them anyway, but would likely pay some political price for doing so. The ads would be looked upon much more skeptically by the public and opposing politicians would likely try to score political points by pointing to the candidate’s unwillingness to seek Commission approval (“What is my opponent so afraid of?”).
Would this sort of legislation really work? It’s hard to know. I’m sure the insightful commenters at this site will point out any number of potential problems with such a plan, perhaps some of them fatal. But I hope this example at least illustrates the sort of proposals I have in mind. We need to think of ways to establish structural incentives that reward honesty and discourage deception. We need to work toward creating a system where politicians see it as being in their best political interest to avoid making false and misleading claims.
I realize that’s an enormously ambitious goal, but even a marginal improvement in the current incentive structure would go a long way toward improving the quality of political discourse in this country. And one of the greatest aspects of our federalist system is that we have 50 laboratories in which to experiment with these kinds of proposals; all it takes is a good idea and a state willing to try it. So I ask you to put aside your cynicism for a moment and really think long and hard about this issue. There have to be creative ways we can come up with to incentivize honesty in politics—even if just a little bit--without running afoul of the First Amendment. That’s my challenge to you (and to myself).
posted by A.L. at 7:20 PM
10 Comments:
Wow this is a really good idea, i'm really impressed by it. Have you considered maybe starting an inititive of some sort to get it started in your state (though I realize this idea was probably just concepted)?
That does sound like a great idea. Just wondering how it can be perverted by the dishonest.
Dude, write your congressman. That is an excellent idea.
I say we should take it a step further, let's have the Election Commission of retired judges submit their approval or disapproval of the candidates themselves! Then these all-knowing, seeing, truth-divining ex-judges can instruct the electorate who to vote for. After reviewing all of the adds, the judges -- in their infalliable, non-partisan, bi-partisan wisdom can decide which candidate has been the more deceitful with his advertisements.
No wait, why not just have "the Commission" decide the elections all together -- they can just select the most honest candidate. With our crazy Electoral College system, this could really work! Everyone should petition their state legislators to change their EC voting mechanism so that the states electors must vote for who the Commission selects. Having rejected which candidate is on balance the more dastardly and deceitful, we will be guaranteed good, clean governance by the federal Commission without the whole messy democracy thing.
No wait, why not just have "the Commission" decide the elections all together -- they can just select the most honest candidate.
You can make this sort of "one step further" argument with any proposal about anything, and turn something perfectly reasonable into something totally absurd. It doesn't mean anything. It's just cheap sophistry. It's no different than when right-wingers respond to proposals to legalize gay marriage by saying things like: "why don't we just allow people to marry animals as well? In fact, why don't we require people to marry animals?"
Clearly creating a commission to review the factual accuracy of voluntarily submitted political ads is not the same thing as creating a commission to take over the job of choosing our leaders. If you want to take issue with my actual proposal, by all means do. I'm not entirely sold on it myself. I just put it out there for discussion. But don't be an idiot.
AL, creation of the Commission is already one step too far. First of all, while many political ads exaggerate or seek to cast an opponent in the least flattering light, very rarely are political ads outright false. The typical exaggeration, something like, "Sen. So-and-so voted to raise your taxes fifty-five times during the last session" -- while often deceptive, are still usually true. The most loathesome adds --- like the one that ran against Harold Ford with the blonde, or the adds attacking Max Cleland's patriotism a couple of elections ago, are not false.
So your commission would be relying on this "materially misleading" standard if it was to accomplish anything. Which means that these ex-judges are going to be deciding whether ads are "truthy" not, in fact, whether they are true. This is why such a commission would be absurd, because political truth is often in the eyes of the beholder. Ensuring the commission is bi-partisan or non-partisan won't make any difference. At a certain point, such a commission would simply be making political choices and judgments, which would be rather distateful, I think for our democracy. I don't think such a view makes me an idiot, and I'm not sure why you don't see these dangers and shortcomings.
At a certain point, such a commission would simply be making political choices and judgments, which would be rather distateful, I think for our democracy. I don't think such a view makes me an idiot, and I'm not sure why you don't see these dangers and shortcomings.
I don't think you're an idiot. I don't even know you. I just thought your previous comment was obnoxious and far less insightful than you seemed to think it was.
In your latest comment, you address the actual proposal, which I appreciate. The concerns you raise are ones I've considered and ones that were debated at some length in the comment section over at Glenn's blog.
First off, I think you underestimate the number of ads that are flat-out demonstrably false in one respect or another. Because I already had this idea in mind, I paid careful attention during this past election season to political ads. There were a surprising number that were flat-out false, at least in some respect. Some, like the DeWine ads in Ohio re: Sherrod Brown's taxes, were just false smears. More commonly, though, candidates would falsely characterize their opponent's position, stating that their opponent supports position X, when that opponent was on the record as supporting position Y. If the commission structure was only able to reduce the number of these kind of ads, it would be a success (albeit a limited one).
Finally, I agree that many of the most problematic ads are techinically true (but very misleading or sleazy). If the commission is empowered to withhold its approval of these kind of ads as well, the system may, as you suggest, prove difficult to implement in a non-partisan way. I don't think this is necessariliy true, but obviously it is one of the big question marks.
Keep in mind, though, that I'm not proposing that the commission have any power to keep candidates from airing ads. It's a voluntary structure. So I think the "dangers" you speak of are overstated. Such a commission would be effective only to the extent it was able to maintain its credibility. Therefore, it would have a strong incentive to only withhold its approval from ads that are false or pretty clearly misleading. And again, commission approval or disapproval would only apply to the disclaimer on the ad; a disapproved ad could still air.
How about doing away with paid political ads all together. Candidates for office will fill out a lengthy employment application PROCEDURE which is then aired ad infinitum for free on the Election Channel.org.
Have you given that idea any thought in regards to overcoming any first ammendment hurdles?
To me it is a no-brainer. In a democracy what the people demand can get done. The political penalty you hope politicians will pay via your Ad Commission for non-compliance will be paid by the litigant to the Election Channel.org.
Maybe I am crazy but I see no reason why we all have to sit back and let politicians and candidates for office talk crap to the public.
"If the people lead, the leaders will follow"... to steal a quote from a wise women's husband's bumper sticker.
I would certainly be interested in seeing or reading your description of some of the ads you noticed were demonstrably false. However, I think at the end of the day this problem of untruthfullness in political ads and political discourse is not the huge deal you make it out to be and is simply a natural byproduct of our vibrant democracy. Indeed the one example of false ads you do mention -- those of EX-Senator Dewine -- help demonstrate that the system itself is not flawed. Dewine was soundly defeated by Sherrod Brown, deceptive ads and all. I worry that any government solution to this problem is going to be far more dangerous than the problem itself. In a democracy people are suppoesd to disagree over the truth and what counts as being "materially misleading" and there shouldn't be some high-priest-like commission determining for the voter what, in fact, is the truth. I hate slippery-slope arguments, and I agree with you that one can always argue "the next step" yet having the government decide political truthfullness just seems horribly Orwellian to me.
If democrats don’t impeach the bastard and his demon spawn I’ll never take them seriously again. I don’t think they should stop there, until this pack of thieves and perverted war criminals dangle at the end of a rope can any citizen rest easy. I’m really wondering if Dub could be as together on the scaffold, I doubt it. Seriously we’re not doing as favors being reasonable with these bastards every generation we seem to deal with some frenzy of criminal behavior from the republicans. I’m not saying democrats are free from sin but it seems that the degree of tolerance that seems to run one way.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home