The online grassroots community has wisely begun a discussion of ethics lately. A February forum at George Washington University was a solid kick-off to the dialogue. An ethical examination would be a healthy exercise when one considers the strategies, tactics and motives surrounding the upcoming Supreme Court nomination battle to fill the seat of retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.
The recent opening on the Supreme Court, and the anticipated grassroots battle over the nominee, raise an ethical question for grassroots organizers. Groups on both the left and right see a Supreme Court nomination battle as an opportunity to rally troops, raise funds and bolster their causes. However, many political observers have suggested that President Obama will probably nominate a non-controversial candidate, seeking to avoid a bloody and partisan nomination fight so close to the 2010 mid-term elections.
If the nomination is sewed up, and the outcome is pre-ordained, why fight the fight? As a grassroots organization, why recruit new advocates, raise more money and hire more staff, if the purpose is not really to win a legislative battle? The question is this: Is it ethical to use a legislative battle to bolster your organization, even though your organization has little or no chance of success?
Readers hoping for the typical blog rant, espousing a view with no latitude for other opinions, will be disappointed by this entry. I genuinely am torn on the question; so my purpose is to explore the pro’s and con’s.
Pro’s:
First, one could argue that despite the futility of any grassroots effort, the First Amendment protects all efforts to petition the government for a redress of grievances, however fruitless. The act itself confirms our constitutional protection, therefore has value.
Second, while this particular campaign may be hopeless, other campaigns, either ongoing or in the future, by the group might be plausible. Shouldn’t a group use all means to recruit potential advocates who share in their beliefs, since there is always the potential to participate in a winning cause? Just because this particular effort is unlikely to succeed, the supporter benefits by notifying the organization that they support the cause, offering the organization the opportunity to provide information and outlets to facilitate their participation in the democratic process.
Third, there is always the outside chance that lightening could strike. Is it not the organization’s responsibility to funders and supporters to tilt at the windmill on the off-chance that Don Quixote actually slays the dragon this time?
Con’s:
There is really only one ethical question to ask when recruiting advocates for a likely losing cause: What’s your motivation? There are dozens if not hundreds of companies and pseudo-nonprofits claiming to advance causes based on the First Amendment, yet their motivations are either selfish or pecuniary. Petition sites abounded during the last ten years, all claiming to “send a message to Washington.” Yet, many of these sites were little more than list building operations designed to sell “affinity” joiners to like-minded organizations. Or, they were vendors claiming that petitions “make a difference,” while research demonstrates that Capitol Hill nearly universally ignores online petitions.
If a group gathers a supporter’s vital information (street address, email address, etc.) based on an inaccurate or fruitless claim, “You can make a difference in the future of the Supreme Court,” one must question their motive. If it is a genuine and well-established advocacy group, then there may be an ethical justification for the outreach, based on the logic in the “Pro’s” section of this blog. If, however, the motivation is otherwise, it’s hard to justify the outreach.
Motivation is an important part of any ethical calculation. If a group exploits an issue only to fill their coffers (and pay organizers’ salaries), it can hardly be seen as furthering First Amendment rights. Similarly, if a company or web site purports to influence legislative outcomes, but merely is a list collector and reseller, how does this support or advance our democratic system?
Organizations and companies make ethical choices every day related to grassroots tactics and strategies. Most have the best interests of supporters and clients in mind. Yet citizens – especially those whose job is to facilitate communication to elected officials – must devotedly defend and advance ethical practices in the online world dedicated to the Founding Fathers’ admonition and protection: “petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Or…maybe not. What do you think?
