This case analysis discusses the legal and ethical risks and ramifications of the decisions faced by opposition research political consultant Pat Parker ("Parker").
Political consultants operate in a highly regulated industry, political campaigns, yet their own activities are almost entirely unregulated. Parker needs to consider whether by selling the research report of his firm, Pat Parker & Associates, on the record of former Republican candidate for the office of Attorney General in Florida, Terry Paine ("Paine"), to the State Academy of Trial Lawyers (the "Trial Lawyers") or to the others such as the Florida Democratic Party, he runs any risk under state campaign financing law, federal copyright law or state contract law. Assuming those legal risks are manageable, what ethical concerns are posed by any of these proposed transactions? What ethical or moral duties does he owe to his former client, the Dale Jackson for Attorney General Campaign ("Jackson Campaign"), the people of Florida or the political process generally? Which, if any, of those ethical obligations would he breach by entering into the proposed transactions? How would the analysis differ depending on the type of ethical standards employed, utilitarian, deontological or communitarian?
a. Relevant facts. The case stipulates that under Florida law it was a misdemeanor for anyone to, directly or indirectly, to make a contribution in excess of $500, to a political candidate in the state or aided or abetted same. According to the case, Parker reasoned that he had minimal liability under the statute because he really did not know how the research would be used or whether the lawyers would even give it to the campaign. The research had a value in excess of $500 because the Trial Lawyers were willing to pay him more than that for it. Although the Democratic Party had failed to make full use of his research report on Paine, it had turned it over to the Jackson Campaig...