Search results

The Framers of the Constitution granted Congress the ability to punish members for misconduct to protect the institution's integrity and dignity. However, with the low approval ratings of Congress and the widespread belief that those in government are corrupt, the institution has not done an excellent job at protecting its integrity. This chapter examines all allegations investigated by the House and Senate Ethics Committees to determine if Congress has systematically punished misconduct among members. Using data on 396 misconduct investigations in Congress, this research examines the institution's likelihood of punishing a member before and after implementing permanent ethics committees in the 90th Congress. The study reveals that Congress was more likely to systematically punish members for ethical misconduct before permanently installing ethics committees. However, in the contemporary period, the only type of misconduct a member is likely to be punished for is sexual harassment. Yet, the likelihood of being punished for sexual harassment falls when a member resigns or strategically retires.

Most Americans are keenly aware of the costs political corruption extracts on system support, fiscal policies and economic development, and ultimately, government effectiveness. Among a list of 10 challenges facing the nation, the public ranks political corruption as the nation's biggest crisis Samussen (2019). Importantly, this issue cuts across partisan and demographic lines. Members of both political parties and independents consistently cite political corruption as a serious problem facing the country.

However, there is a specific kind of political corruption that is disturbing for the health of American democracy – the corruption of Congress. Most Americans appear to have little faith in lawmakers to do the right thing. Majorities believe that Congress is out of touch with average Americans, focused on the needs of special interests, and is corrupt. To be sure, political corruption severely undermines government legitimacy and weakens the development of political, economic, and social structures. This chapter considers the problem of congressional corruption including what forms it takes, where it arises, what anti-corruption reforms are needed, and what these findings mean for the future of American democracy. More specifically, this chapter will permit us to examine if and how perceptions of congressional corruption influence citizens' interactions with government and provide a better understanding of citizens' policy preferences for regulating political corruption.

It should come as no surprise that Americans believe corruption dominates the US political system and, in particular, that members of Congress are in the pockets of wealthy special interests and do not represent the people's views. Among other things, this has led to a gradual decrease in public confidence in government, trust in political institutions, and demands for anti-corruption reforms. Yet, calls for congressional reform are not new. What is unusual is the degree to which the political institutions, particularly Congress, have become unpopular; the extent American's believe the system is out of balance; and the people's distaste for democracy. As public perceptions of political corruption deepen, how is Congress responding to these concerns? Recent events indicate genuine attempts to solve, or at least reduce, the appearance of government corruption. For example, in the 2018 midterm elections, many political candidates signaled a willingness to address the public's grievances. In fact, the newly elected House of Representatives created and introduced legislation that addressed sweeping congressional corruption. This chapter aims to identify and trace congressional reform attempts such as banning lobbyists from fundraising, restrictions on the revolving door for politicians and job hunting disclosures, and other structural solutions considered important to prevent corruption. In particular, the author uses a historical lens to uncover and assess past and current attempts to fix congressional corruption.

In spite of escalating efforts to curb abuse, fraud, and corruption in Congress, members of Congress persist in violating the norms, rules, and laws that aim to ensure they behave ethically. This chapter combines qualitative and quantitative analysis to describe congressional corruption in the modern era. Case studies illustrate consequential financial scandals while also differentiating four categories of corrupt financial practices.

Existing datasets on congressional scandals span the time period from 1972 to 2010, and this chapter extends the dataset to 2018. The analysis next uses the dataset to answer important questions empirically. Which types of scandals occur more often? Have these scandals grown more common or less common over time? What are the consequences of financial scandals for representatives' careers as public servants?

The research uncovers an increase in the disapproval of Congress and a drop in public trust in government associated with exposed congressional corruption in the post-Watergate era. The tools Congress holds to punish members caught up in scandal are discussed and the chapter considers five major scandals to rock Congress since the 1970s. Importantly, we uncover evidence that government institutions and actors are somewhat resilient and can bounce back after experiencing negative public sentiment for a period of time. Yet, it seems in the aftermath of exposed corruption, the corresponding drop in public support has policy implications. We determine that movement in public disapproval of Congress and overall trust in government help explain public law output and the ability of Congress to pass its contemporary legislative agenda.

Are public officials held accountable for political scandals? Existing scholarship typically focuses on voters' response to scandals showing politicians are often punished at the polls for scandals. Specifically, they are more likely to be punished for the abuse of public office for personal gain than for scandals involving personal affairs. That said, not all politicians implicated in scandals seek reelection. Although difficult to observe, many politicians may be pushed out of office by their political party before they have an opportunity to stand for reelection – resigning or retiring before the next election. Others are appointed and consequently never stand for election. We collect a new dataset to understand how scandals affect politicians' careers and whether public officials are held accountable at other junctures. We trace the pathways of politicians implicated in scandals. We document the type and onset of scandals, individuals' reactions to scandals, and whether and when they leave office. Our novel data contribution provides rich descriptive statistics on corruption in the US Congress over time, with new insights into the conditions under which scandals end politicians' careers. The common patterns and significant differences revealed in these data suggest that the impact of scandals on public officials' careers may have less to do with the nature of the scandal or the specific actions undertaken by those implicated and may depend more on the actions of political parties.

The vast majority of political scandals reported in the news center around male politicians. Yet, when women are involved, the nature of the scandals and coverage are sometimes different. Whereas powerful men are rarely, if ever, accused of “sleeping their way to the top,” powerful women frequently are. What happens when women politicians are involved in a scandal that blurs the lines between corruption – i.e., abuse of public authority for private gain – and a simple moral transgression? We designed an original survey experiment to assess participants’ responses to a Congresswoman having an extramarital affair with someone who has the power to advance her career. We find that participants are less likely to suggest they will punish Congresswomen at the polls for involvement in a simple “morality” scandal than for the scandal that blurred the line between a sex and corruption scandal. Moreover, we observe that political conservatives are more likely than liberals to punish the hypothetical Congresswoman, indicating that some voters' negative reactions to women politicians are motivated by concerns about sexual morality, and not necessarily by a perceived abuse of power for professional gain.