1 / 37

Corruption in American Politics: Congress and Elections Eric M. Uslaner

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?.

gavan
Download Presentation

Corruption in American Politics: Congress and Elections Eric M. Uslaner

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.”

  4. 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.

  5. 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 cross-national rankings overwhelming have high levels of both grand and petty corruption.

  6. 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.

  7. The most corrupt countries have both grand and petty corruption (from the TI Global Corruption Barometer Survey), as in the following graph:

  8. Countries where people only see grand corruption are actually pretty honest:

  9. How Corrupt is the United States? • Where does the United States rank on grand corruption?

  10. 1. Brazil 1.104 • 2. Bosnia 1.181 • 3. Nicaragua 1.199 • 4. Turkey 1.202 • 5. Argentina 1.219 • 6. Indonesia 1.231 • 7. Macedonia 1.277 • 8. Lithuania 1.321 • 9. Peru 1.321 • 10. Mexico 1.342 • 11. India 1.359 • 12. South Korea 1.376 • 13. Philippines 1.387 • 14. Poland 1.390 • 15. Moldova 1.395 • 16. Uruguay 1.396 • 17. Italy 1.404 • 18. Ghana 1.410 • 19. Costa Rica 1.415 • 20. Ukraine 1.423 • 21. Kenya 1.428 • 22. Bulgaria 1.428 • 23. Venezuela 1.438 • 24. Romania 1.452 • 25. Portugal 1.453 • 26. France 1.464

  11. 27. Georgia 1.469 • 28. Guatemala 1.475 29. South Africa 1.506 • 30. Israel 1.518 • 31. Croatia 1.525 • 32. Japan 1.532 • 33. Latvia 1.536 • 34. Russia 1.567 • 35. Spain 1.588 • 36. Greece 1.623 • 37. Pakistan 1.639 • 38. Taiwan 1.640 • 39. Ireland 1.686 • 40. Malaysia 1.701 • 41. Czech 1.772 • 42. West Germany 1.792 • 43. USA 1.835 • 44. Canada 1.902 • 45. Estonia 2.106 • 46. UK 2.154 • 47. Switzerland 2.293 • 48. Netherlands 2.366 • 49. Iceland 2.414 • 50. Austria 2.500 • 51. Luxembourg 2.587 • 52. Norway 2.848 • 53. Denmark 2.920 • 54. Finland 3.095 • 55. Singapore 3.106

  12. Where does the United States rank on petty corruption?

  13. 1. Brazil 1.132 2. Bosnia 1.286 3. Turkey 1.292 4. Argentina 1.357 5. Ghana 1.360 6. Nicaragua 1.391 7. India 1.414 8. Mexico 1.422 9. South Africa 1.435 10. Philippines 1.454 11. Peru 1.466 12. Portugal 1.484 13. Moldova 1.496 14. Lithuania 1.539 15. Georgia 1.539 16. Poland 1.549 17. Croatia 1.552 18. Macedonia 1.564 19. Costa Rica 1.567 20. Kenya 1.575 21. Bulgaria 1.603 22. Guatemala 1.607 23. Romania 1.616 24. Greece 1.617 25. Pakistan 1.628 26. Indonesia 1.641

  14. 27. Venezuela 1.648 28. Italy 1.679 29. Ukraine 1.681 30. Japan 1.715 31. Russia 1.744 32. South Korea 1.765 33. Latvia 1.775 34. Malaysia 1.813 35. Uruguay 1.824 36. France 1.844 37. Spain 1.870 38. Taiwan 1.940 39. Israel 2.020 40. Czech 2.120 41. Canada 2.164 42. Ireland 2.244 43. Estonia 2.277 44. West Germany 2.282 45. UK 2.305 46. USA 2.324 47. Luxembourg 2.492 48. Netherlands 2.515 49. Switzerland 2.574 50. Austria 2.606 51. Iceland 2.665 52. Denmark 3.132 53. Singapore 3.186 54. Norway 3.242 55. Finland 3.420

  15. 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

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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 Some Very Little None Unsure • % % % % % % • The military 42 32 18 7 1 - • The police 28 35 29 7 1 - • The church 31 22 28 16 2 2 • Banks 22 27 39 11 1 - • Presidency 21 23 27 25 3 1 • Medicine 19 23 33 23 1 1 • Supreme • Court 16 25 38 18 1 2 • schools 16 21 39 22 1 1 • TV news 12 16 45 24 2 1 • Newspapers 11 17 46 24 1 1 • Courts 9 17 45 26 2 1 • Labor 12 12 47 23 2 4 • Congress 8 14 51 25 1 1 • Big business 8 14 45 29 2 2 • Health • maintenance • organizations 7 10 43 35 2 3

  20. Spending in Congressional Elections from www.opensecrets.org: Hard Money Only

  21. Spending in Congressional Elections from www.opensecrets.org: Soft Money Only

  22. 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

  23. 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."

  24. 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

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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).

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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."

More Related