Whether involving rampant bribery in the Gilded Age or the infamous Teapot Dome scandal, political corruption is pervasive throughout American history and has harmed voters by warping policy and diverting public resources to private gain. These corrupt decisions distort the effectiveness of government institutions and deprive citizens of access to the services they deserve, like education, healthcare, and infrastructure.
The word “corruption” is bandied about in the media and in political discussion, but is rarely defined. Even after the Supreme Court narrowed legal definitions of “corruption,” partisans have used accusations of corruption as cudgels and scorched-earth tactics, further muddying the waters for honest discussion of ethics and morality in politics.
Wioletta Dziuda and William Howell of the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy have built a model that explores what leads to scandal, with a key distinction from traditional models of misbehavior: In their model, scandal is reported when one party informs the other of its politician’s misbehavior. In a period of high political polarization, when both parties aligned with the same official are willing to accuse each other of misconduct, they can avoid scandal altogether by simply reporting what they know.
The model also highlights how media coverage plays a crucial role in scandals, often being the first to report unethical behavior. Extensive coverage can catalyze calls for reform and influence the political landscape, impacting the long-term integrity of government institutions. It’s a complex picture, and Dziuda and Howell hope to continue to refine their model in order to better understand the roots of political scandal and its consequences.
About the Author
