VOLUME 7 / NUMBER 2 / SUMMER 2004 TrThe Pew ustCharitable Trusts Campaign $ Reform Re-Conceiving Human Reproduction Toward an Honest Cyberspace Notes from the President working hard to wisely steward their Campaign Reform Act, we are sup- institutions and serve their constituents. porting work to ensure that campaign This climate is distressing to The laws are effectively implemented. Pew Charitable Trusts. Our founders felt keenly their responsibility to earn very sector, not only the and keep the public trust, holding political, must earn the the institution—and their successors, public’s confidence. Rapidly who lead the Trusts today—to the Eemerging, technologically highest standards of accountability complex areas, by virtue of being and transparency. We understand novel, raise important ethical, social that a commitment to the public trust and policy questions for us all. Those Responsibility comes from a legacy of honesty, good with responsibility for these innovations governance and best practice that must work to assure us that they are must be constantly re-earned by the acting with integrity and accountabil- quality of our work and the integrity ity—and must thoroughly explain to mericans have always been with which we carry it out. the public the importance and impact A characterized as a pragmatic of their contributions. After all, the people: We get things done. “Yankee n the political realm, the credi- public must understand the topic in ingenuity” (not confined to New Eng- bility and transparency by which order to lend a wise voice to the policy land, of course) starts with the assump- our nation conducts elections is decisions that affect it. tion that we don’t have to live with a Icentral to nurturing the public Reproductive genetics is a timely problem but can find an answer—often trust, since voting is the bedrock of example because, even as it clearly non-obvious, bred of such ingredients our democracy—one of the “first solves many problems, it also raises as hope, common sense, technology, principles” of government, as Thomas new and difficult choices for society contributions from diverse disciplines Paine put it, because the ballot “is the to make. For while we as a nation may and newly discovered stakeholders primary right by which other rights concur on the promise the scientific who are drawn into the effort. are protected.” If people were to lose advances hold for preventing diseases, The organizations that successfully faith in the accountability of our election we are assuredly of many opinions on and consistently rise to the challenge system, if they did not believe that our the ethical implications of the tech- emerge as our leadership institutions. elections are free and fair, they would nology and on the sort of oversight We look to them for vision and results, not vote—and the very system that that would give us confidence that its no matter which sector—for-profit, underpins our participatory democ- application is accountable and deserv- nonprofit, philanthropic or govern- racy would profoundly suffer. ing of the public trust. mental—they may inhabit. To help increase public trust, con- The Genetics and Public Policy But that’s not all we want from fidence and participation in our elec- Center, a Trusts-supported project of these leaders. We also expect them tions, the Trusts launched a major Johns Hopkins University, provides to act with integrity, character and initiative in 1996 to reform the role of well-considered policy options so that honesty as they work to serve the money in campaigns. Our investments the public and policymakers can make public interest. In turn, we and our were intended to encourage support educated choices on the use and future partners must be accountable in our for an incremental approach to cam- direction of the technologies involved dealings and transparent about how paign finance reform, based on solid, in human reproduction. The Center’s we achieve our results. nonpartisan research and data and success is based on its independence Unfortunately, every sector has designed to bring varied, informed and ability to provide objective, credible some organizations that have failed and compelling voices into the debate. information and on its fostering of a to meet these standards. Whether We and other foundations worked deliberative environment for disparate through greed, simple thoughtless- with organizations across the political points of view. ness, lack of oversight or other inter- spectrum to provide information that In all of our efforts, the Trusts nal checks, they disregarded the would increase transparency and aims to serve the public interest, and interest of their stakeholders and the accountability in how campaigns are we work—as an institution and with our public they serve. They stretched or financed—critical ingredients to regain partners—by holding ourselves to the even broke their own established rules the public’s trust. The development highest standards of integrity, account- of conduct for their own gains—and, of model approaches was intended to ability and transparency. We act as in the process, lost both their reputa- help end the longstanding ideological though our reputational capital is tion and their effectiveness and hopes impasse around campaign finance always at stake—for indeed it is. for success. Even more tragic, they reform and attract sufficient public tainted the public’s regard for entire and policymaker support to this key Rebecca W. Rimel sectors and the worthy organizations issue. Now, in the era of the Bipartisan President and CEO Tr ust The Pew Charitable Trusts VOLUME 7 NUMBER 2 SUMMER 2004 Trust Juice Worth the Squeeze Published three times a year by USA Today called the Trusts a “winner” 2 The Pew Charitable Trusts when the U.S. Supreme Court backed campaign finance reform. Here’s a © 2004 The Pew Charitable Trusts reformer’s point of view. ISSN: 1540-4587 The Board of Custom Policy for “Custom Kids”? The Pew Charitable Trusts 8 Robert H. Campbell The Genetics and Public Policy Center Susan W. Catherwood looks at the policy vacuum regarding Gloria Twine Chisum reproductive genetic technologies and asks: “Is this what we want?” Alan J. Davis Thomas W. Langfitt, M.D. Paul F. Miller Jr. Before You Get Burned Arthur E. Pew III 14 J. Howard Pew II Conducting Internet transactions carries J.N. Pew IV, M.D. some risks, not always fully understood. Mary Catharine Pew, M.D. Consumer WebWatch is helping buyers R. Anderson Pew be aware. Sandy Pew Rebecca W. Rimel Robert G. Williams Ethel Benson Wister Departments The Pew Charitable Trusts serves the public President and CEO interest in three major areas of work: advancing policy solutions on important Rebecca W. Rimel NOTES FROM THE PRESIDENT Inside front issues facing the American people; inform- Principled action and the public trust. cover ing the public on key issues and trends as Director of Public Affairs a highly credible source of independent, Deborah L. Hayes non-partisan research and polling infor- LESSONS LEARNED mation; and supporting the arts, heritage, Pew Fellowships in the Arts. health and well-being of our diverse citizenry Editor 19 and civic life, with particular emphasis on Marshall A. Ledger Philadelphia. Based in Philadelphia, with an office in Editorial Assistants Washington, D.C., the Trusts makes invest- RECENT GRANTS Jessica Riordan ments to provide organizations and citizens with fact-based research and practical Christine M. Wojdyla 22 solutions for challenging issues. An independent nonprofit, the Trusts is One Commerce Square the sole beneficiary of seven individual 2005 Market Street, Ste. 1700 BRIEFINGS charitable funds established between 1948 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7077 Smart Communities, The Trusts in 2004, 24 and 1979 by two sons and two daughters Phone 215.575.9050 extinction made visible, “under God,” of Sun Oil Company founder Joseph N. 2004 USPS Olympic stamp. Pew and his wife, Mary Anderson Pew. On the Internet: www.pewtrusts.org LETTERS 26 Design/Art Direction Lewis & Nobel Design Cover art: Andy Warhol, “Dollar Sign” © 2004 Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts / ARS, New York. Background: a ballot from Santa Rosa County, Florida. Summer 2004 / 1 Juice Worth the 2004 Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts / Artist Rights Society (ARS), New York Artist Rights Society (ARS), New Arts / Foundation for the Visual Andy Warhol 2004 © Dollar Sign (green), 1982 (silkscreen on canvas) by Andy Warhol (1930-87) Connaught Brown, London, UK / Bridgeman Art Library A campaign finance reformer reviews the struggle for change. Former Solicitor General Seth Waxman is unlikely to forget anytime soon where he was on the morning of De- cember 10, 2003—in the U.S. Supreme Court chamber—or that he was somewhat distracted as the nine justices filed into the chamber to hear the first of two oral arguments on that day’s docket. Waxman’s attention was riveted on what he would momentarily present to the Court in a case addressing the scope of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. At first he did not realize that Chief Justice Rehnquist was announcing a decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, which challenged the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). And when he did realize it, he refused to listen: After all, he had another case to argue that morning. Three months earlier, as lead attorney for the congressional co-sponsors of BCRA, Waxman had brilliantly defended the new law in an almost unprecedented four-hour oral argument against a 2/ Trust All rights reserved. © 1998 Milwaukee Sentinel. Reprinted with permission of UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE. How editorial cartoonists saw campaign finance reform in 1998 . By Thomas E. Mann veritable dream team of prominent lawyers (including former Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and First Amendment champion Floyd Abrams) representing Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and scores of allied plaintiffs.