Yesterday’s article by Jeff Tuttle called attention to the pledge of ethical campaign conduct being taken by Maine’s candidates for governor, U.S. House and Senate. In the article he quoted Christian Potholm, a Republican analyst and professor at Bowdoin College, as saying the candidates’ pledge is “meaningless, and creates a lot of whimpering and whining about nothing.”

What is this infamous pledge Potholm is talking about? The Maine Code of Election Ethics is a voluntary pledge on the part of Maine’s federal and gubernatorial candidates to run fair and honest campaigns. Since 1996, Maine’s candidates for governor and Congress have agreed not to use unfair personal attacks, stereotypes or other misleading characterizations, and false or misleading advertising in their campaigns. They have agreed to avoid tactics such as push polling. They have agreed to publicly repudiate these practices when they are used by third parties on behalf of their campaigns.

Instead, the candidates have committed themselves to conducting “fair and honest” campaigns, which, by the way, does not mean soft on the issues or wishy-washy when it comes to challenging the record or political views of one’s opponent.

Does this type of pledge work? Depends on what you think the code should do. The code is a voluntary pledge. It is neither a legal document nor a guarantee that political campaigns in Maine will be free from unfair or dishonest tactics. It is our candidates for public office telling us how they will behave in their campaigns. Since 1996 many have criticized the code because it is not accompanied by an “ethics police” – someone or some organization to cry foul or fair when political ads are aired on behalf of the candidates. Because of this, the code has been deemed meaningless, wishy-washy, idealistic and even stupid.

We strongly disagree. The candidates – by pledging to conduct ethical campaigns – provide us with a means for evaluating the quality of their campaigns. They have signed off on a blueprint for conducting fair and honest campaigns.

A recent nationwide poll conducted by the Camden-based Institute for Global Ethics suggests this type of pledge matters to voters. Two-thirds of the respondents said “that a candidate’s willingness to sign a [campaign-conduct] code would be a very important factor in their voting decision.” A majority said that “candidates publicly signing a code and following it throughout the campaign would make them go out and vote.” Even more important, eight in 10 respondents said “negative, attack-oriented campaigning is unethical and damaging our democracy.”

We suggest it is incumbent on us – as voters – to use the framework of the code to evaluate what we see. Ask yourself the next time you see an ad that makes you cringe or want to turn off the television: What does it mean when a candidate talks one way and acts another? What kind of leadership do you want and expect from an elected official?

Ultimately, it’s up to all of us as voters to use our own judgment in crying foul or fair, and to convey to the candidates what we expect of them all the way to the ballot box in November.

Kathryn Hunt is a research associate at the Margaret Chase Smith Center for Public Policy and the Department of Industrial Cooperation at the University of Maine.