You have none.

Ethics for public officials require the following at a bare minimum:

The relationship between public officials and the public has been described by scholars as fiduciary in nature. (See e.g. Rave, 2013; Leib, Ponet & Serota, 2013; Ponet & Lieb, 2011; Natelson, 2004) So what is a fiduciary? Dictionary.com defines the term fiduciary as relating to, “a person to whom property or power is entrusted for the benefit of another.” There at least four factors that identify a relationship as a fiduciary one:

1. The beneficiary has delegated authority to the fiduciary to act on its behalf;
2. The fiduciary has discretionary powers over the beneficiary’s assets or interests;
3. The fiduciary is in a position superior to that of the beneficiary due to specialized access, knowledge or ability; and
4. The beneficiary trusts that the fiduciary will act in the beneficiary’s best interest.

[...]

The public delegates governing authority to public officials to exercise discretion over the public treasury and to create laws that will impact their lives. The public official, once elected, appointed, or hired, is in a superior position to that of the individual citizen due to specialized governmental knowledge and the ability to advise, deliberate, and participate in the representative process. And finally, the public trusts that the public official will act in the public’s best interest.

Ethics in government is an old concept. Plato wrote the following regarding what in the present we recognize as pay to play politics:

“Perform no service for gifts.” Whoso disobeys, if convicted by the court, shall be put to death once for all.

Yet, that is precisely the problem with the vast majority of Democrats in public office, and the Democratic Party collectively: they perform services for gifts, or as they euphemistically call it, fundraising. Democrats, individually, and through their various fundraising organizations, rely upon the receipt of billions of dollars from lobbyists and their wealthy corporate and individual clients. In exchange, Democratic officials provide special access to those who have given the money. And special favors as well. This is why the interests of the wealthy are given special attention, and the interests of the rest of us are ignored.

Hillary Clinton, during her term as US Secretary of State, provides a perfect case study of the unethical behavior in which so very many Democrats engage. One example should suffice: the emails between her underlings requiring State Department officials to prefer "FOB" and "WJC VIPs" (i.e., people and corporations who paid Bill Clinton huge sums for speeches, awarded him highly compensated "honorary" positions in their companies or otherwise donated to the Clinton Foundation) with respect to special access and the awarding of government contracts for the 2010 relief effort to Haiti:

[N]ewly released emails show a top aide to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave priority after the 2010 Haiti earthquake to aid contractors marked "FOB"—that’s "Friends of Bill Clinton"—or "WJC VIPs"—that’s "William Jefferson Clinton VIPs." One email from senior State Department official Caitlin Klevorick, who was coordinating incoming assistance offers being forwarded from the Clinton Foundation, read: "Need you to flag when people are friends of WJC. Most I can probably ID but not all."

The numerous examples of unethical conduct by the Former Secretary of State were legion and certainly well known to the Democratic Party establishment, including President Obama. Yet, she was the candidate with whom the DNC deliberately worked in close coordination to insure her nomination, despite its own charter which requires neutrality. The same candidate that most of the Democratic Super Delegates and local state parties supported before the primaries began because she bought them off or called in favors.

But Hillary Clinton is not some "rogue" agent or the "bad apple" in an otherwise barrel of "Good Democrats." She is emblematic of the dishonesty and moral failure to protect the interests of the public among most Democratic officials, at both state and Federal levels. And this lack of any ethical consideration by the Democratic establishment has been shown once again by the election of Senator Charles Schumer of New York a/k/a the Senator for Wall Street, to the position of Senate Minority Leader.

“Wall Street Welcomes Expected Chuck Schumer Promotion,” read a CNN headline on Friday. “It'll be a big plus to have somebody like that if he ends up being Democratic leader,” said former Republican Senator Judd Gregg, who until recently was head of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. “From Main Street issues to the financial issues and everything in between, he's always kept New York at the top his agenda and that will continue as majority leader,” said Izzy Klein, a former staffer of his who now works for the lobbying firm the Podesta Group.

That's right. Schumer's election as minority leader was praised by Republican Senator Judd Gregg, an individual with his own close ties to the TBTF banks our government bailed out while millions of ordinary Americans lost their homes, their jobs and in many instances their lives. Schumer didn't care about the rest of us during the height of the financial crisis. No, his only concern was to protect his friends in the financial industry.

The day after [Schumer] finished meeting with fellow senators about the details of the bailout bill, he attended a fundraiser in Midtown Manhattan with almost two dozen finance industry executives. “We're not going to be some crazy, anti-business liberals,” one executive told The New York Times he told them. “We are going to be effective, moderate advocates for sound economic policies, good responsible stewards you can trust.” The executives ended up giving $135,000 at the fundraiser.

These executives had more than his words at the fundraiser to go by. Schumer had in the past “succeeded in limiting efforts to regulate credit-rating agencies, for example, sponsored legislation that cut fees paid by Wall Street firms to finance government oversight, pushed to allow banks to have lower capital reserves and called for the revision of regulations to make corporations’ balance sheets more transparent.”

His behavior has changed very little since the crisis. When Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Ted Kaufman (D-DE) introduced an amendment to break up the largest banks, they were able to recruit the support of a handful of GOP senators, but Schumer worked alongside the Obama administration to kill it. He insists that capital gains tax rates stay lower than those of other income, a direct gift to fund managers. And he has kept alive the idea of granting corporations that store cash overseas to bring funds back to the United States if they are granted a large tax cut.

Nominating Clinton and electing Schumer to the powerful position of Senate Minority Leader, even after the complete and utter disaster that befell Democrats in the recent election, demonstrates that the Democratic party, as it is presently constituted, is mired in ethical conflicts regarding their fiduciary obligations to "we, the people of the United States" that its members either ignore, or about which most of them simply do not care.

Perhaps the greatest ethical lapse by Democrats over the last three decades is their repeated claim that they represent the interests of ordinary people rather than large corporations and the powerful, wealthy elites. As the Clinton and Obama administrations proved by their actions to advance the interests of powerful corporate interests, and in the case of Bill Clinton in particular, to destroy the lives of the poor and disadvantaged, especially the African American community, this claim is not merely hypocritical, it is a complete and utter lie. A lie that too many people in America still believe, thanks to the party's extensive disinformation campaign and its other propaganda efforts as ably assisted by a compliant, corporately controlled news media.

I have never expected ethical behavior from the Republican Party. During my lifetime it has almost universally advanced the interests of the wealthy and business interests, and sponged off their largesse. Such was not always the case, however, for the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, that Democratic Party, which back in the mid-twentieth century did make the occasional effort to support the interests of the working class and promote policies and laws to assist the poor and advance the rights of minorities, no longer exists. Now spokespersons and public figures representing the party routinely pay lip service to the claim that they are the ones who best represent the interests of all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or class, as opposed to the "money power" to use FDR's term. The ugly truth is that Democrats are owned by large corporations and billionaires who donate to their campaigns, "persons" whose interests diverge greatly from those of the vast majority of living, breathing Americans.

Democrats collectively have no values, and have lost any moral authority to which they might once have laid claim. Today, their party is a rotten shell overrun with individuals who see public service only in terms of what it can do for them, as opposed to what they should be doing for us.

I could write a book about their immoral and unethical lapses but others have done that at great length. What else needs to be said?