The subcommittee definitely does not share this view. Too much of the thinking on this question has been confused and superficial. It is high time that the integrity as well as the competence of the public service should be thoroughly studied and its role in American life made clear. No one has suggested that the country can carry on its public affairs without a body of civil servants which by previous standards is quite large. In a democratic society there is no justifiable reason for attaching a stigma to any group or any vocation which performs an essential service to society. Least of all is there any reason to attach a stigma to employment within the Government. Here is a problem which cannot be solved by glossing it over. situation should be faced and thought through with all the facts available.

The

Factors which some believe adversely affect the public service and indirectly its prestige are the relatively low salaries in the highest executive positions, the inadequate number of permanent positions for career men at the departmental level in which to utilize outstanding men (and so recognize their attainments), inadequate recognition by the agencies themselves of outstanding service in middle and lower ranks, and insufficient vigor in getting rid of employees who are incompetent or fail to live up to proper standards of conduct. On the latter point, there was some difference of opinion as to whether the chief cause is insufficient managerial vigor or excessive red tape in the civil service system. Probably both are at fault. The frequent attacks made upon public employees, both individually and as a class, also lower their standing and make it difficult to recruit able men for these positions.

Campaigns and elections

Certain features of the present systems of campaigning, which either give rise to ethical problems or are in themselves improper practices, should also be noted. There is some agreement that the present high cost of campaigning, the difficulty of getting enough voluntary contributions and workers from the rank and file of voters, and the ability of specially interested organized groups to put up large sums make the problem of campaign financing a serious one in two-party States. Conscientious candidates face the dilemma of accepting disproportionate contributions from particular groups (with corresponding obligations) or of not having enough money to make a good fight. The Corrupt Practices Acts, it is generally agreed, are not effective; the limits on contributions and expenditures are too low for large States and are easily evaded by indirection. Provisions for publicity regarding campaign finances are inadequate. Revision and extension of the Corrupt Practices Acts, which have been repeatedly urged by other committees of the Congress, are clearly needed. Negative remedies alone, however, will not be enough. Positive ways of dealing with the problem of campaign finances must be devised. At the root of the difficulty is the reluctance of the average citizen to contribute time or money to support the candidates of his choice. An equally serious problem is that of campaign methods. Here the root of the problem is a tendency in campaigning to disregard the truth. The worth of the election system in representative government depends upon its being an extension of the legislative discussion of issues and policies. This is intended to be a process of revealing

and of weighing the facts. If mendacity, misrepresentation, and irresponsible statements characterize electioneering, the mind and emotions of the public are immediately exploited, and in the long run, the whole electoral process is discredited. These facts are apparent to Members of Congress, and from the testimony we received, it is evident that the public is also beginning to be aware of and concerned about the trend of campaigning. The level of responsibility and veracity is below that which the public in its heart approves. The fact that violators of reasonable standards may win an election is not evidence to the contrary. The European dictators demonstrated that it is possible to exploit the democratic tradition-a tradition of responsibility and reasonableness-by ruthless methods. As with monetary inflation, those who deliberately depreciate the currency of language can keep one step ahead of the rate of exchange. Cheating is unethical in any system, and cheating the public is more serious than cheating a rival.

The problem of equitable electioneering is complicated by the subtle campaigning which can be undertaken by advertisers, business sales organizations, labor organizations, and farm organizations. Thorough exploration of the problem will doubtless lead also to the reconsideration of tax allowances, and the political activity of organized groups. Faults of public policy

The testimony has called attention to certain features of public policy which also tend to endanger the integrity of the Government. Subsidy policies, for example, are inherently susceptible to abuse. Policies which provide for loans, monetary grants, or other valuable property or privileges to individuals have always been subject to great pressures. It is something to be expected. Where there is danger, prudence dictates safeguards, alertness, and constant supervision. Public policy has been defective in this respect. Known safeguards have been abandoned when the need is greatest (e. g., negotiation of defense contracts, contract settlement). When existing legal safeguards do not fit emergency conditions, a revision rather than abandonment of these safeguards would seem to be in order.

There is an obligation upon Congress and the President to establish clear statements of policy for guidance when broad discretion is vested in administrative officials. This has not been fully recognized. The principle of administrative discretion is sound, and is essential in many activities, but it presupposes a clear policy decision. Unless the political heads of the Government can and do come to a decision on basic issues, it is unreasonable to expect that administrators will be able to carry out policies satisfactorily. In this matter, it is desirable to distinguish between clear decisions and detailed instructions. The danger of strait-jacketing the administrative process with detailed statutory requirements has been recognized for several generations. But the basic policies can be clearly, even specifically stated, without its being necessary to tie up the administrative process in statutory red tape. In the opinion of persons both inside the Government and in private life, the ethical hazards have been increased by carelessness in making a clear decision of policy at the highest political levels and by negligence in not providing adequate safeguards surrounding the exercise of administrative discretion.

4. THE DEVELOPMENT OF VOLUNTARY CODES OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

Codes of professional ethics to guide the behavior of professional groups summarize the sense of obligation which permeates the more thoughtful members of an entire society. When a professional group begins to recognize its character and to be aware of the importance of its public (or socially useful) function, it is ready to think about the specific obligations which rest upon it.

The broad moral code, to which members of society owe allegiance, is not enough. Its principles must also be applied to the professional activities in anticipation of the issues and dilemmas which arise, so that professional obligations can be seen clearly and understood, free from the tensions and temptations which beset a busy professional life. Professional codes are a recognition that professional status brings with it the power to exploit its position-to use it for personal rather than professional ends.

One of the oldest and best known of professional codes goes back to the Hippocratic oath of the fifth century before Christ. It was a pledge to mutual assistance within the medical profession and to further extension of the healing arts; it bound the physician to put his professional duty to his patients first, and to resist temptation to exploit his unique position for personal ends. It protected the patient, the physician, and the profession.

When a specific group with a socially useful function begins to wield great power, it stands at a moral crossroads. It must recognize its social or public function and accept its obligation to protect that function against the exploitive tendencies which power brings, or else its exploitive tendencies will tend to become predominant. There are many forms of exploitation, but in a commercial order, commercial forms of exploitation are naturally predominant. Probably the severest pressure on any professional group today is a temptation to commercialize its power. A code is essentially a measure to safeguard the integrity of the professional function.

Need for codes in the realm of public affairs

The great majority of persons who were asked by the subcommittee to consider the question believed very strongly that ethical codes are needed by many groups now active in public affairs. Only a handful of witnesses were doubtful or opposed, and, in the opinion of the subcommittee, their doubt was probably based more upon the lack of a meeting of minds as to what is meant by "code" than upon opposition to a clarification of professional duties and obligations.

The testimony brought out a number of arguments for codes, some of which have already been mentioned: (1) They would clarify new or complex situations where the application of basic moral principles is far from obvious; (2) they would anticipate issues so that difficulties could be foreseen and basic policy decided when rational consideration is possible (i. e., the rules of the game must be approved before play begins); (3) the enhancement of the influence of the more progressive elements of the group who will tend to bring the whole group up to higher standards; (4) they would be a basis for discipline if the group had enough leadership and pride to act; (5) they would furnish a basis for instructing new members of the group as to their professional

obligations (Hippocrates required all of his disciples to take the oath); and (6) they would instruct the public as to what it should expect of the principal elements in the realm of public affairs.

The formulation and adoption of codes was proposed for Members of the Congress, for Federal administrators, for specific professional or vocational groups within the ranks of the civil service, for attorneys with an administrative practice before Federal agencies, for lobbyists, and all groups regularly doing business with the Government. Specifications and procedures

Some very sound advice was received as to the requirements for effective ethical codes. It was suggested that they ought to be (1) clear and explicit, (2) practical, (3) based on a real understanding of the situation, and (4) applicable in good faith. It was pointed out that the group to which a code applies should have enough group consciousness and pride to make the loss of good standing within the group a severe penalty in itself. The code should be rational, but perhaps the most powerful sanctions operate at the nonrational level. Witnesses also warned that quick results could not be expected and that progress would be slow; but they also argued that codes would ultimately be an effective means of improving professional standards. There is considerable evidence to indicate also that the ideal method of achieving a code is for a group to codify its own best practice, hammering out the rules of the game by its own effort. A number of Federal agencies have already issued rules and regulations to eliminate some of the questionable practices referred to in this report.' While the enforcement of these standards may be uneven, the value of such self-imposed rules is clear.

Strong leadership is of course essential; and not infrequently, some external stimulation is required to fan the spark of professional pride. It is here that a Commission on Ethics in Government can be useful. It can suggest and stimulate action; and when group efforts have produced a respectable statement, it can also recognize and approve it. The stimulative function of such a Commission would perhaps be most important of all.

It is probably true that many groups which are potent forces in public affairs today have failed to realize their own strength and power. They may be aware of their social function since they see very clearly that without their efforts certain facts might be overlooked and certain viewpoints ignored. But they frequently do not see the vast influence they have upon the course of events above and beyond their immediate purposes. The Commission can perform an important service in alerting these varied elements on the American political scene to the fact that they have come of age and must accept the responsibilities of maturity. The subcommittee does not believe that without the leadership and assistance of a Commission on Ethics in Government the work of formulating the needed ethical codes will go forward as it should.

5. GENERAL REMEDIES PROPOSED

The subcommittee received more than 100 proposals for improving ethical standards and for securing more consistent adherence to them in the field of public affairs. A number of these on which there was 1 See appendix to subcommittee hearings for references to typical examples.

considerable agreement or which are particularly significant are reviewed briefly below. Where the subcommittee feels that the situation is sufficiently clear to warrant action now, without waiting for the report of the Commission on Ethics in Government, its recommendations are also presented.

Disclosure

It

Disclosure is like an antibiotic which can deal with ethical sicknesses in the field of public affairs. There was perhaps more general agreement upon this principle of disclosing full information to the public and upon its general effectiveness than upon any other proposal. is hardly a sanction and certainly not a penalty. It avoids difficult decisions as to what may be right or wrong. In that sense it is not even diagnostic; yet there is confidence that it will be helpful in dealing with many questionable or improper practices. It would sharpen men's own judgments of right and wrong since they would be less likely to do wrong things if they knew these acts would be challenged.

The disclosure of income, assets, and transactions in the securities and commodity markets was proposed for all Members of the Congress and for higher administrative officials of the Government. Several methods of disclosure were suggested, such as filing reports with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House (S. 561 introduced by Senator Morse), making public income-tax returns, registration of security holdings with the SEC, and filing reports with the Comptroller General. It was proposed that all Senators and Representatives in Congress, all administrative officials receiving a salary of $9,000 or $10,000 a year, and all Federal judges should make such disclosures. To cover officials serving in important positions without compensation or with nominal compensation, the requirement of reporting might well extend to all officials in positions classified at GS-15 or equivalent ranks regardless of salary actually received.

More recently it has been proposed by the President that disclosure also be required of high political party officials. In view of the close contact of the parties with the Government and their influence upon its operations, this recognition of the public responsibility of such party officials seems wise, and the subcommittee had previously come to the same conclusion about the desirability of such a requirement. Disclosure of this type would be helpful in dealing with conflict-ofinterest problems. A Member of the Congress, for example, would not have to divest himself of any of his assets, but if they were of such a character as to influence his attitude toward particular industries or particular companies, the absence of concealment would free him from any charge of trying to put something over on the public, and would permit congressional colleagues and the public to judge better the weight of his arguments. Similarly a legislator could continue to receive any type of income he was willing to justify. If he doubted that he could justify it to the public, the requirement of disclosure would deter him.

For public administrators who, at certain levels, are more or less anonymous, the disclosure provision could help materially to guarantee their impartiality. Superior officers would be responsible for seeing that administrators were not economically involved in such a way as to jeopardize their impartiality. It has also been suggested that