Corruption in American Politics: Congress and
Elections
Eric M. Uslaner
Professor of Government and Politics
University of Maryland--College Park
College Park, MD 20742
euslaner@gvpt.umd.edu
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/uslaner
How Corrupt is the United States?



In the 19th and early 20th century, many
writers saw American politics as filled with
corruption.
Books such as "The Robber Barons"
detailed how big business, such as
railroads, was widely corrupt.
Journalists such as Lincoln Steffens, who
called themselves "muckrakers," exposed
corrupt politicians and business people.

Corruption was strongest in big cities, which had
many immigrants who depended upon political
leaders for jobs and their livelihoods--and to get
them out of jail if necessary. A Boston political
boss told Lincoln Steffens about why the political
machine was important:
“I think,” said Martin Lomasny, “that there’s got
to be in every ward somebody that any bloke can
come to–no matter what’s done–and get help.
Help, you understand, none of your law and your
justice, but help.”


Corruption was also widespread in the
South, which was very poor and had
strong patterns of racial discrimination.
Corruption, then, was strongly linked to
unequal distributions of wealth and
influence and an unfair legal system.



American politics and business are far less corrupt
today than in the past. The political machines in
the city are largely defunct.
In the United States, almost all corruption is
"grand" corruption. There is almost no "petty
corruption," such as paying bribes to the doctor,
the police, the courts, or to educators.
Countries that rank high on corruption in crossnational rankings overwhelming have high levels
of both grand and petty corruption.
How Corrupt is the United States?


In the 2005 rankings by Transparency
International, the United States was the 17th
most honest country in the world of 160
countries ranked.
Iceland, New Zealand, Finland, Denmark,
Finland, and Sweden rank highest. Bangladesh,
Chad, Myanmar, Haiti, and Turkmenistan are the
most corrupt. China is ranked right in the
middle, tied with Suriname, Morocco, Senegal,
and Sri Lanka.
The most corrupt countries have both
grand and petty corruption (from the TI
Global Corruption Barometer Survey), as
in the following graph:
1
See Both Grand and Petty Corruption by TI Corruption Perceptions Index
.8
BRZ
ARG
TUR
PRU
NIC BOS
MEX
IND
GHA
ITA
GEO
GUA MOL POL
INS
CRI
BUL
MAC
ROM
PHL
UKR
SAF LIT
KEN
LAT
SKR
VNZ
CRO
GRE
PAK
RUS
MAL
CZK
POR
JPN
URU
FRA
SPN
TAI
.6
ISR
CAN
IRE
EST
WGR
UK
.4
USA
HOL
AST SWZ
LUX
.2
ICE
NOR
SNG
DEN
FIN
0

2
4
6
TI Corruption Perceptions Index 2005
r2 = .743 N = 55
8
10
Countries where people only see grand
corruption are actually pretty honest:
See Only Grand Corruption by TI Corruption Perceptions Index
.3
WGR
USA
IRE
ISR
SWZ
ICE
.2
EST
URU
TAI
CZK
SPN
CAN
HOL
UK NOR
AST
FRA
DEN
FIN
SKR
.1
VNZ MAC
RUS
INS
LAT
UKR
LIT
LUX
CRO
ROM
PAK
PHL MOL
KEN GUA
NIC
POL
GEO
PRU
IND
MEX
ARG
GHA
BOS
TUR
GRE
BUL
CRI
SAF
SNG
MAL
ITA
JPN
POR
BRZ
0

2
4
6
TI Corruption Perceptions Index 2005
r2 = .424 N = 55
8
10
How Corrupt is the United States?

Where does the United States rank on
grand corruption?


























1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Brazil 1.104
Bosnia 1.181
Nicaragua 1.199
Turkey 1.202
Argentina 1.219
Indonesia 1.231
Macedonia 1.277
Lithuania 1.321
Peru 1.321
Mexico 1.342
India 1.359
South Korea 1.376
Philippines 1.387
Poland 1.390
Moldova 1.395
Uruguay 1.396
Italy 1.404
Ghana 1.410
Costa Rica 1.415
Ukraine 1.423
Kenya 1.428
Bulgaria 1.428
Venezuela 1.438
Romania 1.452
Portugal 1.453
France 1.464

27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.

43.

























44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
Georgia 1.469
Guatemala 1.475
South Africa 1.506
Israel 1.518
Croatia 1.525
Japan 1.532
Latvia 1.536
Russia 1.567
Spain 1.588
Greece 1.623
Pakistan 1.639
Taiwan 1.640
Ireland 1.686
Malaysia 1.701
Czech 1.772
West Germany 1.792
USA 1.835
Canada 1.902
Estonia 2.106
UK 2.154
Switzerland 2.293
Netherlands 2.366
Iceland 2.414
Austria 2.500
Luxembourg 2.587
Norway 2.848
Denmark 2.920
Finland 3.095
Singapore 3.106

Where does the United States rank on
petty corruption?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Brazil 1.132
Bosnia 1.286
Turkey 1.292
Argentina 1.357
Ghana 1.360
Nicaragua 1.391
India 1.414
Mexico 1.422
South Africa 1.435
Philippines 1.454
Peru 1.466
Portugal 1.484
Moldova 1.496
Lithuania 1.539
Georgia 1.539
Poland 1.549
Croatia 1.552
Macedonia 1.564
Costa Rica 1.567
Kenya 1.575
Bulgaria 1.603
Guatemala 1.607
Romania 1.616
Greece 1.617
Pakistan 1.628
Indonesia 1.641
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
Venezuela 1.648
Italy 1.679
Ukraine 1.681
Japan 1.715
Russia 1.744
South Korea 1.765
Latvia 1.775
Malaysia 1.813
Uruguay 1.824
France 1.844
Spain 1.870
Taiwan 1.940
Israel 2.020
Czech 2.120
Canada 2.164
Ireland 2.244
Estonia 2.277
West Germany 2.282
UK 2.305
USA 2.324
Luxembourg 2.492
Netherlands 2.515
Switzerland 2.574
Austria 2.606
Iceland 2.665
Denmark 3.132
Singapore 3.186
Norway 3.242
Finland 3.420
How Corrupt is American Politics?





















Over time, a large share of Americans believe that most politicians
are crooked (from the American National Election Studies):
year of |
Summary of are govt officials crooked
study |
Mean Std. Dev.
Freq.
Obs.
------------+-----------------------------------------------1958 | .25568862 .4364118
1670
1329
1964 | .30007231 .4584549
1383
1383
1968 | .26344505 .44067348
1283
1283
1970 | .33126551 .47096057
806
806
1972 | .37695853 .48473609
2170
2170
1974 | .46849088 .4991715
2412
1510
1976 | .44131893 .49666258
2684
2105
1978 | .42011278 .49369279
2128
2128
1980 | .48476993 .49993002
1543
1543
1984 | .33369743 .47166191
1831
1831
1988 | .41794569 .49336678
1694
1694
1990 | .49501835 .50010632
1907
1907
1992 | .46619335 .49896958 2194.5916
2193
1994 | .51620679 .49988102 1738.2501
1739
1996 | .43358667 .49573349 1509.8852
1513
1998 | .40271132 .49063926
1254
1254
2000 | .36309915 .48105104
1523
1523


Two of the high points come in 1974
(Watergate) and during the House Bank
scandal (1990). But in 1994, Americans
were highly critical of Congress even
without evidence of mass corruption.
Currently most Americans see corruption
as common among politicians.



In the wake of the recent scandals in Congress involving
lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Representatives Tom DeLay
(R, TX), Bob Ney (R, OH), Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R,
CA) and allegations that Senate Republican Leader Bill
Frist might have had insider information before selling
stock, 55% of Americans now say that corruption is
widespread among members of Congress.
77% say that when lobbyists bribe members of Congress,
"this kind of behavior is the way things work" and only
16% say that they are "isolated incidents."
57% of Americans say that half or more of members of
Congress accept bribes that affect their votes in one poll
(CBS/NY Times); in another (Fox News), 65% say that
most elected officials make policy decisions as a direct
result of money they receive from campaign contributors.



Only 2% of Americans believe that members of Congress
are more honest than most people, 44% say more
dishonest (52% say about the same).
67% say that it should be illegal for lobbyists to make
campaign contributions to members of Congress or
congressional candidates and 90% say that it should be
illegal for lobbyists to give members of Congress gifts,
trips, or other things of value (meals at restaurants, for
example).
But 55% believe that their own Representative would
refuse a bribe and only 24% say that their member
would accept a bribe.
Confidence in Major Institutions


Gallup Poll. May 23-26, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"I am going to read you a list of institutions in American society. Please tell me how much confidence you,
yourself, have in each one: a great deal, quite a lot, some, or very little. . . ."





















A Great Deal Quite A Lot
%
%
The military 42
32
The police 28
35
The church 31
22
Banks
22
27
Presidency 21
23
Medicine
19
23
Supreme
Court
16
25
schools
16
21
TV news
12
16
Newspapers 11
17
Courts
9
17
Labor
12
12
Congress
8
14
Big business 8
14
Health
maintenance
organizations 7
10
Some
%
18
29
28
39
27
33
Very Little
%
7
7
16
11
25
23
None
%
1
1
2
1
3
1
Unsure
%
2
1
1
38
39
45
46
45
47
51
45
18
22
24
24
26
23
25
29
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
43
35
2
3
Spending in Congressional Elections from
www.opensecrets.org: Hard Money Only
Spending in Congressional Elections from
www.opensecrets.org: Soft Money Only
Total Spending U.S. Presidential Elections in Millions of
Dollars

Year

2004
$717.9

2000
$343.1

1996
$239.9

1992
$192.2

1988
$210.7

1984 $103.6

1980
$92.3

1976
$66.9
What Does Money Buy?




The Abramoff Case, or "Bribes and Tribes"
The K Street Project
Inviting lobbyists into Congressional
hearings but keeping Democrats out.
As Representative Barney Frank has said,
"Members of Congress are the only people
to whom perfect strangers give lots of
money and expect nothing in return."
Does Money Usually Buy Influence or Votes?





There is a large body of literature on what
factors shape the voting behavior of
members of Congress.
The major factors that shape roll call
voting in both the House and the Senate
are:
* member's party
* members' ideology
* constituents' preferences



Across a wide range of studies, there is no
support for the argument that campaign
contributions affect members' voting
decisions.
Nor is there evidence that campaign
contributions help incumbents get
reelected. Ironically, the more incumbents
spend in their races, the worse they do.
Most campaign contributions to
incumbents seem to be wasted. There is
far more money in politics than is helpful.
Why Do Interest Groups Give to Incumbents?



The evidence we have suggests that interest groups
reward incumbents who vote their way, rather than give
money to "bribe" members to vote with them. When a
member is very active in gathering support for legislation
a group wants, he or she will get more contributions.
But most members work hard on issues because they
believe in them or because their constituents will benefit.
Incumbents use big campaign "warchests" to discourage
strong opponents from challenging them.
Even so, the reelection rate for incumbents is about 99%
and very few challengers can raise enough money to be
competitive.


Petty corruption is almost non-existent in
the United States and, despite what the
public thinks, grand corruption seems
relatively rare as well.
The magazine CQ Weekly on January 20,
2006 ran an article, "Two Decades of
Lobbying Scandal and Repercussion" from
the 1970s to the 1990s.

The article cited six major scandals: Watergate and
"Koreagate" (a former member of Congress and South
Korean businesspeople distributed thousands of dollars to
lawmakers to persuade the U.S. not to withdraw troops
from in the 1970s, "Abscam" (where federal agents created
a dummy company to try to bribe members of Congress for
a fictional sheik) in the 1980s, the "Keating Five" scandal
of the 1980s where five Senators had asked the Federal
Home Loan Bank Board to halt an investigation into
savings and loan executive Charles H. Keating, Jr.; the
House Bank Scandal of 1990, where over 100 members of
the U.S. House were charged with overdrafts of their
accounts in the House bank (most were attributable to
bookkeeping errors by the bank, but 77 members either
retired or were defeated); and the House Post Office
scandal, where Rep. Daniel Rostenkowski (D, IL),
converted postage stamps into cash.


Outside of the House bank scandal and assorted
personal scandals, fewer than 75 House members have
been implicated in all of these scandals combined over
three decades and only a handful have been convicted of
wrong-doing.
The typical Congressional response to scandal was to
make small reforms. The biggest reforms came in 1974,
when all donations to political candidates over $25 were
required to be reported to the Federal Elections
Commission--and where very restrictive limits on
contributions were established ($5000 per candidate per
election cycle). However, donors have found ways to get
around these contribution limitations through what has
been called "soft money" (funds designed to get out the
vote or to help the parties).


In 1989, Congress banned honoraria for
members of Congress, limited outside
income, and prohibited members from
keeping campaign contributions for their
personal use after retirement.
The Republicans ran in 1994 charging that
40 years of Democratic rule had led to a
corrupt system, but they have resisted any
changes in ethics laws other than banning
outside gifts (in the House) and limiting
their value in the Senate.
Current proposals focus on banning paid trips for members
of Congress, except when members travel to raise funds
for their campaigns. But this would have two possibly
negative effects.
First, it would likely mean that all paid trips would be part of
fund-raising--so that Congressional elections would
become even more tied to fund-raising than in the past.
Second, most trips involve educational visits abroad--mostly
to Israel and China. These visits do not involve major
campaign contributors.
 Another proposal would prohibit former members of
Congress from having access to the House or Senate
floors or to the gyms. The impact of these reforms is
questionable.




Ethics conflicts in Congress are handled by bipartisan
committees in both the House and the Senate. Service
on these committes is voluntary and it is getting
increasingly difficult to get members to serve on these
committees.
It takes a majority of the committee to recommend
action against any member and Republicans appoint only
those members whom they believe will not punish the
leadership. In 2005, the Republican leadership stripped
Rep. Joel Hefley (R, CO) of the chair position of the
House Committee after he voted to recommend
sanctions against Majority Leader DeLay. Hefley has just
announced his retirement.
Democrats want a reformed ethics committee system
but the Republican leadership has rejected this proposal.



The Abramoff-DeLay scandals may be the biggest
corruption cases in American politics since Watergate.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (D, NV) called the
current Congress "the most corrupt in history."
There have been major scandals in the private sector as
well, with companies such as Enron, TycoInternational,
and WorldCom (among others) embroiled in allegations
that their leaders enriched themselves at the expense of
their companies.
Congress addressed these private scandals through
comprehensive legislation, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, passed unanimously in the Senate and by 423-3 in
the House of Representatives, for enhanced financial
disclosure by companies as well as greater corporate
responsibility for auditing financial reports.


However, political scandals are relatively
rare in American politics--at least scandals
that involve more than one individual
member.
There will always be instances of
scandalous behavior by individual politicians.
Currently, four state governors have either
resigned or have admitted complicity in
scandals. But each case is distinctive and
not part of a larger pattern.



So Congress is not confronted with
demands for widespread reform. Dealing
with corruption by tinkering with
institutions such as Ethics Committees or
making sure that the "bad guys" are
punished is like crabgrass control.
You can pull weeds from your garden all
day and all night, but they will come back.
Hopefully, they will not come back too
soon.
Banning former members from the floor or
the gym will have no real effect.


In countries with low levels of corruption, it may be useful
to focus on institutional reforms. Dennis F. Thompson, a
political philosopher at Harvard, has suggested ethics
commissions for the House and Senate composed of
people who do not serve in either chamber. This is a
worthy proposal that deserves consideration, especially
since the Congress no longer seems capable of punishing
members of the majority party without political retribution.
Thompson also worries that much of the corruption in
Congress stems from legislators' ability to provide benefits
to their constituents. (This is what the Abramoff case is all
about.) He suggests that we remove the temptation of
members to help their constituents by centralizing the
constituency service in Congress into a single office. Yet,
members of Congress have developed strong reputations
for helping ordinary people--and punishing all members
because a few have given corrupt service may not be
warranted.

In countries with higher levels of corruption, where there
is both grand and petty corruption on a daily basis, these
structural reforms and "putting the bad guys in jail" is
like crabgrass control. It will punish some people for
being corrupt, but it will not address the root causes of
corruption.
To address the root causes of corruption, a country must
face up to its fundamental sources: growing (or high)
inequality, low trust among the citizens, an unfair legal
system, and strangling regulations. These problems
require far deeper reforms than redesigning institutions
or "putting the bad guys in jail."