Ethics in campaigns

There has been a lot of discussion concerning ethical communication in campaigns. As everyone already knows, I feel that current campaign communication falls short of what we need. More importantly, I think most, if not all, of us agree that there is a difference between the campaign communication we would LIKE to see, and the campaign communication that we DO see. The argument breaks down usually at the point where someone notes that the campaign communication we see now is being used because it works, not because it is ideal, but simply because it works. And to institute some kind of higher level communication that is not based on manipulative messaging would be too hard and would lose elections. To that argument, I would like to draw a parallel. The vast majority of nations on this globe have stood together and denounced torture. They have agreed that those kinds of practices are unethical and below us as a global society. Some may argue (the US?) that torture works...and that very well may be true, and the global community knows that as well. Yet, they have chosen to make a principled stand. Now my point is this, why should politics be any different? Can't we all agree that citizens should not be used a means to every politician's end? That they should be treated, and communicated with in an honest and ethical way? If ethical stances in the mist of war on a global scale are possible, why can't ethical stands in our political arena be possible?