Claire Kraemer
Lincoln's List:
a bipartisan initiative to incentivize the truth
In a class at Duke University with 44 students called Political Analysis, not a single one of us stated that we were interested in running for public office. Our professor was shocked. “Not one?” she asked again, thinking we may have misunderstood her inquiry. We didn’t. When explaining ourselves, a lot of us had come to the consensus that we would rather not “sell our souls.”
​
Politics has lost its nobility in the public’s eye. Citizens of the United States, and abroad, have become desensitized to lying. Instead of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, we expect political figures to withhold the truth, only tell us a piece of the truth, or blatantly lie about the truth. We expect little and have lowered the bar for politicians, categorizing them as puppets of big corporations instead of advocates for their constituents.
To alter this narrative, we need to work to curb political lying. To do this requires the creation of an honesty incentive. A list, more specifically Lincoln’s List, named after Honest Abe. Lincoln’s List will start on a Congressional level, and if found successful, will work its way down to local elections. To qualify for this list, politicians will have to reach a certain value in their Sincerity Score, a kind of credit score for integrity. Like a credit score, a Sincerity Score qualifies you for certain purchases, or for other people to purchase you. Once on this list, politicians will have access to Political Action Committees (PACs) that state their commitment to honesty. Lincoln’s List would be an exclusive bipartisan list where politicians are tagged for their honesty and rewarded with the means to hold a Congressional seat and power.
​
After a crash course in how credit scores work, I decided to base my ratings on a similar system. I focused on the payment history piece of the score, which is a track record of all the things you do wrong and how you behave. To translate to our Sincerity Score, the credit score's "payment history" would be a score based on the history of ratings from PolitiFact. I use PolitiFact as a guideline because their claim review can directly correlate to a score. Lincoln’s List will need to recruit journalists from fact checking communities across the United States for this kind of movement to be sustainable and to diminish scrutiny from conservative critics, but all who participate should commit to standardizing their fact checks into the ratings coined by PolitiFact. These categories of True, Mostly True, Half True, Mostly False, False, and Pants on Fire. Each of these ratings would be given a point value.
​
A PolitiFact "True" rating would increase your Sincerity Score, while a "False" rating would decrease it. True’s are given a 110 value, Mostly True’s are 90, Half True’s are 80. Mostly False are 50, False’s are 20, and Pants of Fire receive 10. You are penalized for bad behavior, but eventually gain political money if you are consistent with your integrity. The Sincerity Score is a percentage based on the average value of your fact checks. To be added to Lincoln’s List, your score will need to be 70% or above. For example, Mitch McConnell, based on his Scorecard from PolitiFact, would receive a Sincerity Score of about 67% aggregated from his recorded 35 fact checked claims. Bernie Sanders receives a 76% rating based on 169 fact checks. Sanders’ score is more representative of his record as a whole, while McConnell’s score is based on a limited sample size. In reality, I doubt that their Sincerity Scores would have an eleven point spread if they received the same amount of fact checks. The Sincerity Score would need at least 100 separate ratings to create an averaged value. This way, one False rating doesn’t automatically take someone off the List, but there is still incentive to keep your average statement in the True range.
The difficulty while choosing values for each rating and the threshold score, is to establish a balance between Lincoln’s List creating a change in political behavior and the List actually being attainable. Especially at its inception, Republicans will have a more difficult time adjusting the behavior they have previously been rewarded for with reelection. For this reason, Half True’s and Mostly False’s still have a high point value. Ideally the ratings would be harsher. A Half True would receive a scoring of 50 and a Mostly False would receive 25, but this kind of point system wouldn’t even place Bernie on Lincoln’s List with a Sincerity Score of 64%. We would appreciate politicians telling us the truth more than 70% of the time, but unfortunately politicians are humans and make mistakes. They are also known for deflecting blame for these mistakes. Sincerity Score forgives politicians if they make a false statement and own up to it. If McConnell were to retract and publicly apologize for the statement “Clearly, the Obama Administration did not leave any kind of game plan for something like this” when he referred to the pandemic, his Sincerity Score would no longer average in that Pants on Fire rating. Lincoln’s List not only incentivizes truth-telling, but also taking responsibility for correcting a lie.
​
The statements that count toward a Sincerity Score are statements on the floor of Congress, donor emails, tweets, and quotes in the media. There is a possibility that politicians will attempt to skew their Sincerity Score by making an abundance of True but irrelevant statements to offset a big lie, like Ted Cruz claiming that “Ukraine blatantly interfered with our election.” To avoid this issue, fact checkers enlisted to work for Lincoln’s List will not fact check statements that are obviously True, like “There are two chambers of Congress” and will not fact check repeated claims.
​
At a given point in time in the future, after the most powerful PACs commit to our cause, we will begin to track political behavior. This tracking can only start when we have enough PACs to cause a commotion in the political world and, therefore, gain the respect and attention of politicians. The politicians will start paying attention to their political truthfulness when they understand that it impacts their campaign contributions. Each politician will start with a clean slate and and at the same percentage value: 80%. Evenformer President Donald Trump will start with a hopeful score.. Seated politicians and candidates will be notified that they will be tracked for Lincoln’s List, and then the ratings will commence at the same time. Ideally, this process would begin in the Fall of 2021, in preparation for the 2022 election cycle and be firmly in place by 2024. As politicians enter the national stage, they will be added to the List’s tracking system. Politician’s scores will be calculated over a single year, with enough time to prove themselves and receive funds before the bulk of their campaign begins. A year of calculations from at least 100 fact checks that amount to a score of 70% places a candidate on Lincoln’s List. But, if their Sincerity Score dips below the threshold at any point in their campaign or career thereafter, their PACs can no longer donate to that candidate.
​
Lincoln’s List will be successful because it plays into the motivations and behaviors that drive politicians. In 2003, Francesco Caselli and Massimo Morelli created a study called “Bad Politicians” while at Harvard University. They attempted to answer the question of how in a democracy, “a system that allows citizens maximum choice and control over their public decision makers,” bad leaders are still chosen. They found that there are two different incentives to holding a public office: a financial incentive and an ego incentive. Those candidates at the national level receive greater reward to their ego, and in order to remain in office, they need to receive financial contributions. Lincoln’s List forces politicians to be more truthful, and in doing this, their ego is boosted from a positive association. This positive association brings them funds from PACs committed to Lincoln’s cause of being honest. Even being a part of an exclusive group called Lincoln’s List has the ability to capture the ego of politicians, especially Republicans who continue to boast that they are the party of Lincoln. I can imagine a campaign ad where one claims that the other is not stamped by this approval system.
Caselli and Morellli argue that the reason why politics in the United States is currently crowded with bad politicians is that there is path dependence to this issue. Meaning, history matters and the past has great influence on the present. Once politicians are of lower quality, it disincentivizes those of a higher quality from running for office. What began as people lying about international policybecame Richard Nixon spying for personal purposes, to Bill Clinton wagging his finger stating he never had sexual relations with someone he most certainly did. They all led up to President Trump, who would not admit defeat even as he exited the White House. Now, people choose alternative paths to avoid the negative character association that comes with the word “politician.” My classmates say that working for a non-profit or as a lawyer would have greater impact than making a deal with the devil. This means those left with the interest in running for office are of lower quality. In another study on political motivation, Klaas J. Beniers and Robert Dur in 2004 sought to find what motivates politicians. They reinforced the theory of path dependence in politics. They stated that “Politicians have stronger incentives to behave opportunistically if they believe other politicians are more likely to behave opportunistically.” Meaning, politicians act as their colleagues act. If their equals continue to lie and continue to be reelected, nothing is incentivizing a politician to be a truth-seeker.
​
There are politicians who break the mold of those described in “Bad Politicians.” Mary Marvin has been the Mayor of Bronxville, New York for 17 years. When I ask her about her job, she explains how she is the self-proclaimed “Mayor Pothole,” where her duties range from putting a stop sign on a street to helping senior citizens use their computers to register for a vaccine. “In a small place like this, you can really help people.” She is the epitome of someone getting into government because they genuinely care, saying, “Most days you come home and you’ve done something for somebody.” Marvin doesn’t lie because she believes in upholding a certain reputation and character.
Marvin wished politicians had a culture of admitting to faults, instead of lying to get themselves out of a situation. She says, “Sadly if a public official gets backed into a corner, sometimes it’s just easier to lie your way out of it.” It’s harder to take blame. Marvin continues, “I think in politics in particular, people have the inability to say: I’ve made a mistake, and I am so sorry.” Marvin gave the example of when she received outrage from the voters of Bronxville after she turned on the parking meters on Sundays. It would’ve been easier for her to say it was a group decision. But no, she owned up to her poor judgement, and reversed her decision. Beniers and Dur also stated that, “Only those politicians who care sufficiently about the public interest are willing to admit a policy failure at the risk of losing the next election.” Due to a politician’s financial and ego incentive, few are like Marvin: holding the public interest in mind over reelection.
​
The politicians that we are trying to influence aren’t like Marvin. Lincoln’s List would identify those public figures who seem to be lacking a moral compass. . “I wish people would pay attention and vote for the person with the most integrity,” Marvin says, “not the person with the best sound bites, not the person who’s the best looking, not the person with the most campaign money.”
​
Lincoln’s List would allow those with the most integrity to have the most money. And that money would get people to pay attention to those with that honesty that Marvin craves to see on the national stage. . By making powerful PACs commit to only supporting those on Lincoln’s List, politicians benefit from acting with integrity. If they do not, they lose the funds that let them hold their place in power. When enough politicians begin acting with integrity, other politicians are encouraged to act the same way and in doing so, quality candidates rise to the top. Lincoln’s List alters the current path dependence.
​
A PAC is a political committee that can raise and spend money on candidates. The subject of PACs range from partisan issues to entertainment ones. From manufacturing to marajuana. Over the summer, my friend created a NATE PAC, because his name is Nate, and found that there was close to no regulation on what he could spend his donations on. An individual can contribute only $2,800 directly to a candidate and PACs can only donate up to $5,000 to a candidate. But in 2010, a Supreme Court ruling struck down these caps in a case between the Federal Election Committee and Citizens United, a conservative group. In a 5-4 decision, the court stated that PACs could spend freely, as spending is an expression of a First Amendment right. As long as PACs worked independently from candidates, corporations could donate unlimited funds to now proclaimed “Super PACs'' which can then spend funds on advertisements and other forms of communications. The creation of Super PACs expanded the influence of wealthy donors and corporations in an election. Corporations became more influential voters than constituents. Their entrance into the political sphere steadily increased the amount that candidates were required to raise for a run for office. The National Rifle Association’s (NRA) Political Victory Fund PAC alone spent $18,650,354 in the 2020 cycle. Although the PACs did not directly donate to a candidate’s campaign, candidates benefit from cooperation with powerful PACs. In many contests it is critical to have the support of a PAC.
​
Ruth Walter is in her first term as a Westchester County legislator. . Like Marvin, she represents Bronxville, along with North Yonkers and East Yonkers. She defeated the incumbent candidate who had served for 14 years. Walter is passionate about the environment, healthcare, and small businesses. Walter owns a cheese shop in Bronxville where my older brother worked in high school. Her dad was a journalist who taught her the importance of the truth. Contrary to my classmates in PubPol 301, Walter states, “If you don’t want to get involved in politics, then nothing that you want to happen will get done.” She also understands the power of political groups in influencing candidates. She says, “Politicians are so sensitive to advocacy. If they think that they will lose an election, they will be convinced.” Politicians are threatened by powerful groups. If enough powerful PACs who support candidates sign off on solely supporting those on Lincoln’s List, politicians will be incentivized to speak the truth, In a study done by Open Secrets, a website that tracks money put into politics, the average price of victory was calculated across the House and Senate. In 2018, a Democrat who won a Senate seat spent an average of $14,973,813 and a Republican spent $19,158,893. Successful non-incumbents spent more: around $23.8 million. A House race is less expensive. A victorious Democrat coughs up $2,187,415, while a Republican spends $1,901,827. Candidates need PAC money, and many specifically need corporate PAC money to win very expensive campaigns.
Very few candidates deny money from PACS, but these are not the Ted Cruzes and Marjorie Taylor Greens of the world. Those who pledge not to take any corporate PAC money are not the political liars we know and love. In 2020, 155 candidates agreed to the pledge created by End Citizens United. Among them were Joe Biden and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, but not a single Republican made the pledge. Only 52 members of the House and twelve Senators currently serving are on that list. This does not mean that these Senators do not receive PAC money in general, but specifically refuse corporate PAC money, which is where the big money comes in. The other 471 Congressmen require more than savvy social media usage and volunteers who believe in their mission to get themselves into office. They will require the cash attached to admittance to Lincoln's List.
​
The first step in the creation of Lincoln’s List will be a “buy in” from PAC’s. The biggest challenge will be: how do I get the NRA’s PAC to commit to Lincoln’s List? How can one be sure that a separate “Eagle List” isn’t created that claims that Donald Trump is the most truthful man to serve in politics?
​
It will require an intense effort by Lincoln’s List lobbyists to get the names of prominent PACs across both aisles to allow Lincoln’s List to vet the candidates they aide. Before PACs sign on to this list, they will not know who is accepted into this group. They cannot determine whether it is a solely liberal or even a solely conservative group. The Sincerity Scores will begin their calculation after enough prominent and powerful PACs that support both conservative and liberal agendas advertise their commitment to the truth. This advertisement is key to getting PACs to sign off on this list. Stating that the NRA is committed to Lincoln’s List means that the NRA is committed to the truth. If the NRA refuses to sign onto the Lincoln’s List, how could they be an honorable organization? Would they rather support politicians who lie? The answer is yes considering their previous donorship, but when asked so pointedly, it is difficult for an organization to refuse this kind of commitment if Lincoln’s List has enough RNC buzz. Those who lobby for particular PACs will need to be key players in the Democratic and Republican world. These people understand their party’s mission and how to best approach each. I would nominate President Bush and President Obama and former members of Congress for that role. We need those who remind the PACs of the seemingly “Good ol’ days.” PACs do not need us, but in order for Lincoln’s List to work, we need them. Lincoln’s List cannot promise PACs the ability to raise more money than they already have, especially the most well known ones.
Lincoln’s List will advertise their commitment to integrity and against corruption in a hope that they have a similar ego incentive that politicians do. Similarly to politicians, if we get enough powerful PACs on board, the rest will follow in order to not miss out on the positive association. Only then can we begin altering the behaviors of the politicians.
Lincoln’s List will aid us in a time when the candidates we choose to elect on a national level are not guided by their principles, but by their vanity. We will use this quest for political power by creating a system of tracking a candidate’s sincerity and promising campaign assistance from a list of prominent Super PACs. This practice of behaving truthfully to receive political money will mean more honest people in politics. As we encourage citizens to think higher of the profession and our government, more high quality individuals will be incentivized to run for office. Until one day, a Lincoln’s List isn’t necessary because those who chose to enter national politics are more like Mayor Marvin or Legislator Walter. Then, my entire Public Policy class might raise their hands when prompted to answer if they are considering running for a public office in our government.