It argues that negative campaigning serves to decrease voter participation, and suggests that at times large amounts of negative advertising by independent groups overshadows the messages of the candidates themselves. Perhaps most important, negative ads inhibit the ability of those who are elected to lead, the statement suggests. In recent years the ill will spawned by campaign rhetoric seems to linger past the election season. Like the first draft, the revision does not endorse any specific reform proposal but offers criteria from Catholic ethical and social teachings as a basis for evaluating reform proposals. The draft also reaffirms the view that public financing can be an appropriate way to fund most election costs, but does not call for total public financing.
Government is the means by which society seeks to identify, achieve, and protect the common good.
As this is a concern for all people, it is appropriate that the cost of doing so be shared by all, the statement says. To the extent that public financing makes candidates less dependent on the funds of special interest groups, the public debates over issues will be less subject to domination or distortion by those interests, the revised draft states. The revised statement also retains language from the first draft regarding the regulation of campaign expenditures by groups other than candidates. The revised draft suggests that regulation of this kind does not automatically inhibit free speech. However, the draft suggests that such regulation should focus on the issue of disclosure of spending sources as opposed to limiting the content of the message.