Previous studies have largely overlooked three key components of a scandal that could determine how it shapes election outcomes: the extent to which it is covered in the media, the potential that donors respond differently than voters, and the likelihood that the impact of scandals have changed over time. Examining U.S. House scandals between 1980 and 2010, we find that while scandal-tainted politicians receive fewer votes and are less likely to win than otherwise similar legislators not embroiled in scandal, donors actually contribute more money to their campaigns after the scandal’s revelation. Both of these effects, however, are limited to financial and sex scandals that garnered national media attention. Moreover, we find that voters are less punitive and donors are even more supportive in the post-1994 period of nationalized electoral politics.
AbadieAlbertoImbensGuido W.2006. “Large Sample Properties of Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects.” Econometrica74 (1): 235–67.
2.
AnsolabehereStephenGerberAlan. 1994. “The Mismeasure of Campaign Spending: Evidence from the 1990 U.S. House Elections.” The Journal of Politics56 (4): 1106–18.
3.
BarberMichael J.2016a. “Donation Motivations: Testing Theories of Access and Ideology.” Political Research Quarterly69 (1): 148–59.
4.
BarberMichael J.2016b. “Representing the Preferences of Donors, Partisans, and Voters in the US Senate.” Public Opinion Quarterly80 (S1): 225–49.
5.
BarberMichael J.Canes-WroneBrandiceThrowerSharece. 2017. “Ideologically Sophisticated Donors: Which Candidates Do Individual Contributors Finance?” American Journal of Political Science61 (2): 271–88.
6.
BasingerScott J.2013. “Scandals and Congressional Elections in the Post-Watergate Era.” Political Research Quarterly66 (2): 385–98.
7.
BasingerScott J.BrownLaraHarrisDouglas B.GulatiGirish J.2014. “Preface: Counting and Classifying Congressional Scandals.” In Scandal! An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Consequences, Outcomes, and Significance of Political Scandals, edited by DagnesAlisonSachlebenMark, 3–29. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
8.
BonicaAdam. 2014. “Mapping the Ideological Marketplace.” American Journal of Politcal Science58 (2): 367–86.
9.
BonicaAdamCoxGary W.2018. “Ideological Extremists in the U.S. Congress: Out of Step but Still in Office.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science13 (2): 207–236.
10.
BrownLara M.2006. “Revisiting the Character of Congress: Scandals in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1966–2002.” Journal of Political Marketing5 (1–2): 149–72.
11.
ButlerDaniel M.PowellEleanor Neff. 2014. “Understanding the Party Brand: Experimental Evidence on the Role of Valence.” The Journal of Politics76 (2): 492–505.
12.
CarlsonJamesGanielGladysHydeMark S.2000. “Scandal and Political Candidate Image.” Southeastern Political Review28:747–57.
13.
DiamondAlexisSekhonJasjeet S.2013. “Genetic Matching for Estimating Causal Effects: A General Multivariate Matching Method for Achieving Balance in Observational Studies.” Review of Economics and Statistics95 (3): 932–45.
14.
DohertyDavidDowlingConor M.MillerMichael G.2011. “Are Financial or Moral Scandals Worse? It Depends.” PS: Political Science & Politics44 (4): 749–57.
15.
DohertyDavidDowlingConor M.MillerMichael G.2014. “Does Time Heal All Wounds? Sex Scandals, Tax Evasion, and the Passage of Time.” PS: Political Science & Politics47 (2): 357–66.
16.
FennoRichard. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
17.
FismanRayGoldenMiriam A.2017. Corruption: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press.
18.
FogartyBrian J.2013. “Scandals, News Coverage, and the 2006 Congressional Elections.” Political Communication30 (3): 419–33.
19.
FranciaPeter L.GreenJohn C.HarrisonPaul S.PowellLynda W.WilcoxClyde. 2003. The Financiers of Congressional Elections: Investors, Ideologues, and Intimates. New York: Columbia University Press.
20.
FunkCarolyn L.1996. “The Impact of Scandal on Candidate Evaluations: An Experimental Test of the Role of Candidate Traits.” Political Behavior18 (1): 1–24.
21.
GalvisÁngela FonsecaSnyderJames M.Jr.SongB. K.2016. “Newspaper Market Structure and Behavior: Partisan Coverage of Political Scandals in the United States from 1870 to 1910.” The Journal of Politics78 (2): 368–81.
22.
GelmanAndrewKingGary. 1990. “Estimating Incumbency Advantage Without Bias.” American Journal of Political Science34:1142–64.
23.
GimpelJames G.LeeFrances E.Pearson-MerkowitzShanna. 2008. “The Check Is in the Mail: Interdistrict Funding Flows in Congressional Elections.” American Journal of Political Science52 (2): 373–94.
24.
HibbingJohnTheiss-MorseElizabeth. 1995. Congress as Public Enemy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
HillSeth J.HuberGregory A.2017. “Representativeness and Motivations of the Contemporary Donorate: Results from Merged Survey and Administrative Records.” Political Behavior39 (1): 3–29.
26.
HiranoShigeoSnyderJames M.Jr.2012. “What Happens to Incumbents in Scandals?” Quarterly Journal of Political Science7 (4): 447–56.
27.
HopkinsDaniel J.2018. The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
JacobsonGary C.1978. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review72 (2): 469–91.
29.
JacobsonGary C.1980. Money in Congressional Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.
30.
JacobsonGary C.1990. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: New Evidence for Old Arguments.” American Journal of Political Science34:334–62.
31.
JacobsonGary C.DimockMichael A.1994. “Checking Out: The Effects of Bank Overdrafts on the 1992 House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science38 (3): 601–24.
32.
KallaJoshua L.BroockmanDavid E.2016. “Campaign Contributions Facilitate Access to Congressional Offices: A Randomized Field Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science60 (3): 545–558.
33.
KlašnjaMarko. 2017. “Uninformed Voters and Corrupt Politicians.” American Politics Research45 (2): 256–79.
34.
KrasnoJonathan S.GreenDonald PhilipCowdenJonathan A.1994. “The Dynamics of Campaign Fundraising in House Elections.” The Journal of Politics56 (2): 459–74.
35.
LazarusJeffrey. 2008. “Incumbent Vulnerability and Challenger Entry in Statewide Elections.” American Politics Research36 (1): 108–29.
36.
LeeFrances E.2016. Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37.
McAllisterIan. 2000. “Keeping Them Honest: Public and Elite Perceptions of Ethical Conduct among Australian Legislators.” Political Studies48 (1): 22–37.
38.
MillerJoanne M.KrosnickJon A.2000. “News Media Impact on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: Politically Knowledgeable Citizens Are Guided by a Trusted Source.” American Journal of Political Science44:301–15.
39.
NyhanBrendan. 2015. “Scandal Potential: How Political Context and News Congestion Affect the President’s Vulnerability to Media Scandal.” British Journal of Political Science45 (2): 435–66.
40.
NyhanBrendan. 2017. “Media Scandals Are Political Events: How Contextual Factors Affect Public Controversies over Alleged Misconduct by U.S. Governors.” Political Research Quarterly70 (1): 223–36.
41.
ParkerGlenn R.DavidsonRoger H.1979. “Why Do Americans Love Their Congressmen So Much More than Their Congress?” Legislative Studies Quarterly4:53–61.
42.
PetersJohn G.WelchSusan. 1980. “The Effects of Corruption on Voting Behavior in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review74 (3): 697–708.
43.
PrainoRodrigoStockemerDanielMoscardelliVincent G.2013. “The Lingering Effect of Scandal in Congressional Elections: Incumbents, Challengers, and Voters.” Social Science Quarterly94 (4): 1045–61.
44.
PuglisiRiccardoSnyderJames M.Jr.2011. “Newspaper Coverage of Political Scandals.” The Journal of Politics73 (3): 931–50.
45.
RottinghausBrandon. 2014. “Surviving Scandal: The Institutional and Political Dynamics of National and State Executive Scandals.” PS: Political Science & Politics47 (1): 131–40.
46.
VoldenCraigWisemanAlan E.2014. Legislative Effectiveness in the United States Congress: The Lawmakers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
47.
WelchSusanHibbingJohn R.1997. “The Effects of Charges of Corruption on Voting Behavior in Congressional Elections, 1982–1990.” The Journal of Politics59 (1): 226–39.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
