— James Madison, The Federalist No. 57

When I was asked to serve in several ecclesiastical positions that had broad responsibility over a congregation (ward), regional group of congregations (stake), multiple regions, and a mission, I was asked a question: “Is there anything in your background that, if it came to light, would be an embarrassment to you, your family, and the Church and do damage to the people you lead?” Later, when I was in the position to select and invite others to serve in those assignments, I continued that practice. It seemed perfectly appropriate.

In virtually every profession involving public trust, people undergo scrutiny before they are entrusted with responsibility. Lawyers submit to character and fitness investigations. And sometimes background checks for some clients. And we are required to renew ethics training every two years to maintain our licenses.

Our county bar association used to have a nonpartisan judicial nomination committee on which I served on. We vetted candidates for elected judicial positions. We looked at quality of work and character and ranked them qualified or unqualified. It was nonbinding, and most candidates participated. It served a valuable purpose, until one of the local parties decided they would no longer have their judicial candidates participate.

Corporate executives are subjected to exhaustive background checks. Employees with access to confidential information, financial assets, or children are routinely vetted. If these standards make sense in virtually every other position of public trust, why should we expect less from those who seek to govern us?

Every election cycle, Americans are told that “the voters should decide.” Of course they should. But voters can only choose from the candidates political parties place before them. Bad actors live across the political spectrum. It’s troubling to me when a party tolerates morally bankrupt candidates because it’s their only choice or they think even a corrupt individual with the right letter behind their name is better than a good person with the wrong letter.

My view, and I’m not exactly a political neophyte, is if you are going to criticize the other for not cleaning house and nominating questionably immoral candidates, you better do the same. This practice would create a rising tide of quality that would raise all boats in the political discourse sea. These practices would make the parties the first, and perhaps most important, gatekeepers in our democracy. It would push corruption and extremism back to the fringe.

Yet a person seeking the presidency, a governorship, or a seat in Congress can become a major party nominee without any comparable independent review. Just put up enough money and they are often handed the nomination by party leadership.

This is an institutional failure. Every political party should require prospective candidates to pay for and submit to an independent background investigation conducted by a nationally recognized firm.

The review should examine criminal history, sexual improprieties, significant civil litigation, financial integrity, business dealings, conflicts of interest, educational and military claims, and other matters bearing on honesty and fitness for public office, and any matter that could be used to pressure an elected official to compromise impartiality. The findings should be reviewed by an independent ethics panel established by the party. More importantly, the parties must be willing to act on what they learn.

Too often, political calculations overwhelm moral judgment. If a candidate appears electable, ethical concerns become someone else’s problem. That attitude has damaged both major parties and, more importantly, public confidence in our institutions.

This should not be a partisan issue. Republicans and Democrats alike have, at different times, excused conduct they would have condemned in the opposing party. When winning becomes the only standard, character inevitably becomes optional.

How many times have I heard the comment after an untoward disclosure by loyalist to the subject of the disclosure: “I didn’t elect a pastor-in-chief”? Well, of course not. But did you seriously vote for unethical and immoral behavior? That attitude simply emboldens bad actors.

Perhaps the answer is a bipartisan Candidate Integrity Act, or a voluntary Candidate Integrity Compact signed by both national parties. Such a measure could establish minimum vetting standards, require independent investigations, create ethics review panels, and commit each party to disqualifying candidates whose conduct demonstrates dishonesty, corruption, abuse of office, or a fundamental lack of integrity.

No law can guarantee good leaders. No background check can reveal every flaw. But we can reasonably expect political parties to exercise the same care in selecting nominees that businesses, law firms, schools, and government agencies exercise when hiring people for positions of far less consequence. If we require a Committee on Character and Fitness before someone can practice law, why don’t we require something similar before someone seeks elected office?

Our constitutional system depends on elections. But elections depend on choices. Political parties owe the American people more than candidates who can win. They owe us candidates who deserve to win.

If political parties refuse to guard the gate, voters should insist that they do. The integrity of our democracy depends on it.

I have no doubt that nearly all people qualify for redemption. Scripture teaches me that. Great literature teaches me that. Experience teaches me that. But redemption is far different from a serial sexual abuser, fraudster, philandering adult, egomaniac being placed in a position of public trust.

For the record I do believe there are good, honorable men and women, willing and able to serve in both parties. This is not a partisan issue for me. We better do something or we will be in the situation Franklin warned about, when he was asked what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had created. He famously replied, “A republic, if we can keep it.”

We need a rising tide of integrity that will raise all boats. I remain hopeful about the “American Experiment”, but deeply worried.

Dave Cook was born and raised in Ogden, and graduated from Ogden High. He has served as President of Habitat for Humanity and on many boards, including a recent appointment to the Council on Jewish, Christian, Muslim Relations. His legal career and other positions have taken him all over the world, but he still enjoys returning to Utah for professional events and personal activities.