PUBLIC CORRUPTION

INTRODUCTION

Why should you care about public corruption?

Public corruption does real harm, often to people just like you. When those in governmental power abuse their offices for any of the many reasons defined in this course, then citizens are always hurt, whether from higher prices, lower living standards, threats to personal safety and freedom, or greater national security risks.  The perpetrators of public corruption in all its forms strive to take advantage of the many to serve the few. That runs counter to the idea of American democracy of, by, and for the people. Indeed, in some times and places, entire governments have been effectively captured by corrupt groups. There are many laws against public corruption, but constant pressure from citizens is the key to ensuring they are enforced.

“The time to guard against corruption and tyranny is before they shall have gotten hold of us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1785

“If we do not provide against corruption, our government will soon be at an end; nor would I wish to put a man of virtue in the way of temptation.” – George Mason, Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention, 1787

Overwhelmingly, most people are honest. Even so, there are always some immoral people who will seek advantage over others if they believe the gains outweigh the costs of getting caught. We review below what kinds of people are typically involved, some of the most common gains and costs, and the way that democracy or the lack of it can shape how people see those gains and costs.

This short course is arranged in three parts: an introduction to the topic and how the U.S. stacks up in comparison to other countries, a review of what affects the costs and benefits of public corruption, and ways that you can contribute to the fight against corruption. You can read through the entire course or use the menu below to skip to those topics that interest you the most. There are also two annexes with lists of types of corruption and laws against corruption.

What is public corruption?

One definition of public corruption, from Transparency International, is “the abuse of entrusted power for personal gain.” We expand upon that in a way that lets us address some specific aspects of public corruption. Public corruption is the abuse of official positions or public trust for illegitimate partisan and/or private gain.  We take this definition apart and explore it in detail below.

• Abuse of a government office or public trust occurs when a government official acts in a way that results in partisan or private gains rather than advancing or protecting the common good.
  • Abuse of authority occurs when an official misuses or wrongfully applies a position of influence, power, or official capacity for personal gain, to harm others, or for purposes inconsistent with the public interest or the duties of the office. It is essentially a violation of the public trust.
  • Public officials are often granted a degree of discretion to perform their duties. Abuse of discretion occurs when an official disregards the principles of fairness, impartiality, and public interest that are meant to guide that discretion.
• A public action is illegitimate when it breaks the public’s trust and/or involves illegal activities, violates public policy, or lacks a legal and fair process.
  • Some actions may be legal but are still perceived by many people as corrupt because they raise serious concerns regarding fairness, trust, and accountability. (See the special topics below on campaign finance and on common sense versus legal definitions of bribery.)
• The private gain to a citizen or business comes in the form of some policy favor or public service that is unavailable to all other citizens or businesses. Examples include powerful government jobs, sole-source procurement contracts, product safety certifications, tax breaks or subsidies, and pardons.
• The private gain to a government official could be monetary, but it could also come in other forms, such as political power, celebrity, or sexual favors.
  • The private gains could be limited to one public official. They could also go to a government official’s family members, lovers, friends, political allies, staffers, business partners, and others.
• The partisan gain could result from any abuse of power that gives one political party, faction, politician, or official a political advantage over rivals: more power, more money, more loyalty, favorable media reports, more ability to suppress opposition speech or votes, and so on.

Note 1: Political corruption is often used interchangeably with public corruption. However, some political scientists limit political corruption only to gains in power, while the gains from public corruption could include many kinds of benefits, including power and wealth. We focus on the broader concept of public corruption because of the many ways money, celebrity, sex, and so on can be harnessed to political power.

Special topic: Common sense versus legal definitions of bribery.

There are often differences between what most citizens would consider to be corrupt and what the law defines as corrupt. The case of McDonnell v. United States (2016) provides an example.

Shortly after he was elected Governor of Virginia, McDonnell met with Jonnie Williams, the founder and CEO of Star Scientific, Inc. (Star), who wanted the Food and Drug Administration to classify his product, Anatabloc, as a pharmaceutical. That classification would be more profitable than the alternative classification of nutraceutical. However, such a classification would require expensive testing, clinical trials, and studies, and Star lacked the funds. Between 2009 and 2012, Williams and McDonnell met several times and agreed that “independent testing {of Anatabloc} in Virginia was a good idea.” Williams provided expensive gifts to the McDonnells and “was willing to help” with their financial troubles. A launch event for Anatabloc was held at the Governor’s Mansion, and Mrs. McDonnell facilitated meetings between Star officials and officials at the University of Virginia and Virginia Commonwealth University to get the studies started.

The McDonnells were eventually found guilty on 11 counts of corruption, under federal statutes that make it a felony to take “official action” in exchange for money, campaign contributions, or any other thing of value. McDonnell appealed his conviction and argued that the jury instructions given at trial did not properly define the term “official action.”

The Supreme Court was then asked to decide if, for federal bribery statutes, an “official action” is limited to the exercise or threatened exercise of actual governmental power, and if the term is not limited in this manner, are the statutes unconstitutional?

The unanimous decision was that “An ‘official act’ must involve a formal exercise of governmental power on something specific pending before a public official.” This wording rules out promises to act as well as threats to act or not act.

Supporters of the ruling argue it clarifies the line between ethical misconduct and criminal behavior, prevents chilling effects on legitimate political activity, and puts a check on prosecutorial overreach. 

Critics argue the decision effectively legalized “paying for access” and made it harder to convict officials for corrupt actions that may have previously been considered illegal. 

Public corruption can be petty or grand.

• Petty corruption refers to low-level, often quite routine, acts of bribery, extortion, and other illicit transactions that enable people to enrich themselves at the direct expense of others. Bribing a customs official to move imports through the system faster (speed money) is an example of petty corruption. Another example is a police officer extorting minor sums of cash on the threat of arrest or prosecution for a ‘fictional’ offense.
• Grand corruption operates at a much larger scale both in terms of abuse of power and the gains involved, to the point where the impact is often felt by many across a country, or even beyond national borders. The most common example involves the abuse of public procurement contracting, where a major contract, say for a road, a bridge, or armaments, is given by a powerful government official in exchange for a bribe. Other examples are seeking loyalty in exchange for favorable regulation or favors such as tariff exemptions.
• Petty and grand corruption are linked.Widespread petty corruption only happens in countries where there is significant grand corruption and where the beneficiaries of petty/small extorted bribes make payments to more senior officials to ensure that their criminal actions are not sanctioned.
• This short course will focus only on grand public corruption.

What kinds of people and businesses become corrupt?

Most people are not corrupt. For those ordinary citizens who are involved, it is more likely to be petty corruption, perhaps paying a bribe to avoid a speeding ticket, than they are to get involved with grand public corruption. In 2013, Transparency International reported that seven percent of Americans surveyed reported paying a bribe.

For those who are involved with grand corruption, there are some things they tend to hold in common. Most, but not all, public corruption involves a transaction, an exchange of something of value for another thing of value. The people on each side must have something they can trade to satisfy their needs or ambitions. This simple fact tells us a lot about the kinds of people who choose corruption.

People from many kinds of businesses can get involved with grand public corruption. They tend to have two things in common.

• They benefit from government services and contracts more than most. They require frequent interaction with government officials for permits, leases, procurement contracts, and other approvals.

This criterion is not restricted to businesses and private organizations. As the U.S. is a federal system, there are opportunities for corruption between different units of government and the officials within them. See the retribution example in Part D below.

• Many businesses and organizations also play for high stakes that are often made more rewarding only with government assistance. Examples include large market shares, large profits, or political control of a government or government agency.

Examples include:

• Construction firms
• Oil, gas, and mining industries
• Weapons manufacturers and military support service providers
• Financial firms
• Drug gangs and cartels
• Healthcare firms
• Some larger firms within the technology sector
• Real estate firms
• Transportation firms

In some countries and times, a few powerful private interests (e.g. powerful businesses, oligarchs, corporate interest groups, and drug cartels), have managed to gain control of government and public policy to serve their own needs, rather than the public good. This often involves corrupt officials working with their private partners to change laws and institutions, siphon public funds through corrupt contracts and monopolies, and dismantle democratic checks and balances to stay in power. This process is referred to as “state capture.” It is different from typical corruption because it involves manipulating the laws and institutions of most or all of a government. (See this link for an example from South Africa.)

On the other side of the transaction are government officials. In the United States, most officials are honest. Those who are corrupt are a very small share of the total number of elected and unelected officials. For example, in 2014, out of 435 representatives and 100 senators, Congress recorded only fifteen legislators (3%) involved in alleged or actual corruption for private and partisan gain.

Those who participate in grand public corruption are empowered to provide what businesses, organizations, and political parties want. In addition, they believe they can act without consequential accountability or scrutiny.

For elected officials, the lack of consequence can come from holding a “safe seat,” meaning there are not enough voters willing to punish a corrupt official by voting for someone from the other party in the next round of elections.  Term limits can be another problem for accountability. Voters cannot punish elected officials for corruption detected in their final term of office. (Court cases might remain an option.) The lack of consequence may also be due to legal immunity from prosecution, partisanship when one party controls all branches of government, lack of media coverage, or willful ignorance from partisan supporters of corrupt officials. Another possibility for some officials is the obscurity of their offices.

Obvious examples include officials who have the power to shape policies or judicial decisions in favor of a business, organization, other government unit, or political party. Such powers are held by state and federal judges, state elections officials, public officials at municipal, state, and federal levels, state and federal legislators, mayors, governors, and even presidents and their senior officials.

More obscure examples include departments, agencies, and offices that determine policies/decisions for procurement, tax administration, property tax valuations, industry regulations, licensing, patent grants and extensions, banking and other industry regulations, and service provision standards.

How much public corruption is there in the USA?

Public corruption was notably present in the Gilded Age from the end of the Civil War through the 1890s, before a public backlash led to several key reforms. At the start of the 21^st century, the U.S. was counted among the less corrupt countries. The situation has worsened since. We offer a brief review below.

Public corruption was widely felt during the Gilded Age, from the end of the Civil War through the 1890s, as several large railroad owners bribed politicians to gain advantageous government policies. Graft-fueled urban political machines, such as New York’s Tammany Hall, and the Whiskey Ring and Crédit Mobilier scandals, revealed collusion by public officials and business leaders to defraud the federal government. At the same time, general elections were plagued by vote-buying and intimidation tactics. Successive presidents and state governors operated a “spoils” system of jobs for loyalty. A public backlash led to several key reforms, including the creation of a merit-based federal civil service, the Interstate Commerce Act to regulate railroads, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to regulate monopolies, and the growing use of the secret ballot.

The United States has slipped in recent years, according to Transparency International. (The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index is constructed by averaging perceptions by business-people and country experts of the level of corruption in the public sector.) Our best year was 2015, with a peak score of 76 out of a maximum of 100. We did better than 151 out of 168 countries. Only 15 did better.

The U.S. score started slipping in 2016. It slipped out of the top 20 in 2017 and has continued to slip through two different federal administrations. This was mainly due to threats to the system of checks and balances, an erosion of ethical norms, opaque campaign finance, and a significant decline in public confidence in the judiciary. Our 2025 score was 64 out of 100, still better than 152 countries, but worse than twenty-eight.

What do we all lose from public corruption?

Public corruption can harm you and all Americans in many ways.  The more the government’s leaders and public officials steal from the public purse, the less public resources are available for all manner of social services, for foreign aid, and for national security. The more corrupt acts distort the allocation of public resources, favoring bribe-payers over others, so the more markets and services to citizens are undermined. Public corruption leads to less accountability or less representation in government. Accordingly, public corruption can hurt you directly by increasing your daily cost of living, and, more generally, reducing your quality of life and that of your family and friends.  And, of course, there can be consequences if you participate in corrupt acts and get caught. (See Part 8 below.)

National Security

• Foreign leaders sometimes set out to deliberately corrupt the leaders of lands they want to control. For example, in the summer of 2020, Foreign Affairs magazine published an article by a group of former US diplomats accusing China, Russia, and other countries of having transformed corruption into an instrument of national strategy.
• Public corruption can result in the loss of vital national security secrets. Motivated by financial greed to fund a lavish lifestyle, Aldrich Ames sold the identities of virtually every CIA and FBI source operating in the Soviet Union between 1985 and 1994. His treachery resulted in “exceptionally grave” damage to national security, including the execution of at least 10 high-level U.S. assets. In another example, Robert Hanssen accepted over $1.4 million in cash and diamonds to provide the Soviets with thousands of pages of classified documents between 1985 and 2001. He compromised U.S. strategies for nuclear war, military weapon technologies, and the existence of a multimillion-dollar eavesdropping tunnel under the Soviet Embassy.
• Public corruption can divert resources away from the military or supply the military with poorly made equipment likely to fail when needed. Various procurement scandals include Operation Illwind (1988), the Fat Leonard (2024) case, and the Raytheon (2025) case.
• Public corruption can endanger public safety. A notorious Chinese drug trafficking organization used front companies formed in Massachusetts to distribute deadly fentanyl analogues and 250 other drugs to some 37 U.S. states in the years leading up to 2020. Public corruption, including money laundering, can facilitate the financing of terrorist organizations. In 2018, the US Department of Justice reported that a Lebanese businessman linked by the Treasury Department to Hezbollah pleaded guilty to money laundering and conspiracy.

Corruption plays a key role in the diversion of arms and ammunition to criminal organizations and conflict zones. This is done by arms brokers bribing state officials to create fraudulent export or import documentation, or by military or police personnel illicitly selling state weapons for personal profit.

The Economy

Most substantially, government corruption can undermine the efficient performance of markets. This undermining is accomplished by pushing out honest, efficient companies in order to promote dishonest, inefficient companies, and enabling fraud and crime, with the combined impact of rising inflation, rising unemployment, and slower economic growth.

• Public corruption increases the cost of doing business through the price of illicit payments themselves, the management cost of negotiating with officials, and the risk of breached agreements or detection.
  • Example: In 2023, Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder, R-Glenford, was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison for his role in a conspiracy in which FirstEnergy, an Akron-based public utility, paid $61 million in bribes to get a $1.3 billion ratepayer bailout.  Subsequently, the utility was also found to have made $108 million in balance sheet “errors” that covered up expenses for lobbying and donations.
• Public corruption in financial regulatory offices can put our money at risk.
  • Illustration: Oklahoma’s former insurance commissioner resigned ahead of an impeachment trial and was later convicted of embezzlement and accepting bribes in the mid-2000s from an insurance executive in exchange for favorable regulatory treatment. Citizens suffered when Fisher’s actions led to one company’s collapse, leaving them without coverage or facing claim denials. The public bore costs associated with receiverships and regulatory failures. Fisher’s acceptance of bribes for preferential treatment also created an unfair market, damaging legitimate businesses and public trust in insurance regulation.
• Corruptly obtained government support for inefficient firms raises costs for consumers and stifles innovation. Competition for major U.S. Defense Department contracts is intense.
  • Illustration: In 2006, the U.S. Justice Department reached an agreement with the Boeing Company on a record $615 million settlement to resolve criminal and civil allegations that the company improperly used competitors’ information to procure contracts for launch services worth billions of dollars from the Air Force and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration – rather than winning based on superior innovation.
• Public corruption in regulatory offices, like transportation safety regulators, food safety, and building codes, can put lives at risk.
  
  
  • Example: Commercial driver’s licenses were sold to unqualified truck drivers in exchange for bribes that were funneled into a political campaign fund. In 1994, an unqualified driver who had obtained his license through this scheme caused a horrific accident that killed six children.
  • Example: Three workers were killed when the Hard Rock Hotel in New Orleans partially collapsed during construction. A subsequent investigation by city officials led to the suspension of two building inspectors who were alleged to have accepted bribes and falsified inspection reports, claiming to have inspected floors they never actually visited.
  • Example: Sewol Ferry Disaster. Bribes to regulators in South Korea allowed a ferry there (the Sewol Ferry) to be dangerously overloaded, causing it to capsize and kill over 300 people in 2014.  

Billions of dollars of taxpayer money

• Public corruption costs ordinary taxpayers billions of dollars annually, not only through lives and property lost but also through inflated prices for goods and services.
  
  
  • Example: Public corruption causes spending by state governments to be higher than necessary. One study found that the 10 most corrupt states between 1997 and 2008 could have reduced their total annual expenditure by an average of $1,308 per capita—5.2 percent of the mean per capita state expenditure—if corruption had been at the average level of the other states.
  • Specific example: Illinois’ public corruption convictions cost the state an estimated $556 million every year from 2000-2018, according to an Illinois Policy Institute analysis of a peer-reviewed 2011 paper published in the academic journal Public Choice.

Government capacity to serve

Public corruption can reduce a government’s capacity to defend the nation, provide services to you, and invest in new capacities on your behalf – or require more government debt to finance those expenditures. This can happen in several ways:

• Government revenues can fall below targets when tax collection officials are willing to accept bribes to allow taxpayers to avoid their obligations.
• Government revenues can also fall when taxpayers see a corrupt system failing to deliver adequate public services fairly. Such perceptions make businesses more likely to operate in a “shadow economy” to avoid paying taxes to such corrupt governments.
• Poor quality of goods and services the government procures from corrupt suppliers for use in national defense, infrastructure, and service delivery.

Democracy in our republic

Corruption by elected and unelected officials can undermine the legitimacy of representative democracy in our republic. Corruption damages confidence in public authorities and institutions, leading to cynicism and a belief that the system is rigged against them. Corruption can sometimes create emotional and motivational impacts in some people. Victims may experience distress, disillusionment, a loss of hope, and a feeling that their efforts are futile. We briefly review some of the costs, by public sector role:

• Corrupt elected officials will represent and feel most accountable to their corrupt partners – donors, advertisers, political operatives – rather than the voters they are meant to represent. Problems will not get solved, or will be solved only to the satisfaction of the ruling kleptocracy.
• Corrupt appointed officials are selected for their immorality and loyalty rather than useful experience and skills. They will prioritize the needs of their corrupt patrons – corrupt elected officials and political brokers – rather than the citizens they are meant to serve. Laws will be followed and enforced selectively and poorly if they are followed at all.
  • Illustration: the Teapot Dome Scandal. Albert B. Fall served as the Secretary of the Interior from 1921 to 1923. In a significant conflict of interest, Fall accepted over $400,000 in bribes (disguised as “loans”) from oil tycoons in exchange for secret, no-bid leases to federal oil reserves in Wyoming and California. He was the first U.S. cabinet member convicted of a felony and sentenced to prison.
• Corrupt judges are of special concern because they cannot be counted on to be of the highest quality, nor can they be counted on to prioritize justice in an unbiased manner.  This is of special concern in three arenas: political, social, and economic. Corrupt judges can be paid to influence election disputes. They can be paid to rule against maintaining the civil liberties and rights of citizens. And they can be paid to rule in favor of one side of a business dispute.
  • Example: Kids for Cash Scandal. Between 2003 and 2008, Judge Ciavarella and Judge Conahan accepted approximately $2.6 million in kickbacks from the developers and owners of two private, for-profit juvenile detention centers. In exchange for these bribes, the judges ensured a steady flow of “clients” by sentencing thousands of children to these facilities. Approximately 4,000 juvenile convictions involving more than 2,300 children were eventually overturned. Several victims suffered from severe trauma that led to later overdoses or suicides.
• Corruptly selected goods and services suppliers will not face any accountability for high prices and poor quality, even when citizens’ well-being is at risk. In the United States, these kinds of cases of corruption are almost always found in state and local governments. There are many examples in the book ” Corruption in America: A Fifty-Ring Circus, listed in the sources below.

BENEFITS & COSTS OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION

This section reviews what people gain from public corruption, the risks and costs of getting caught, and how democracy and polarization can impact the cost-benefit calculations people make.

What do people gain from public corruption?

There are always some people who will seek an advantage over others if they believe the gains outweigh the costs of getting caught. We can divide gains into two categories: non-partisan and partisan advantages.

Non-partisan advantages to businesses and organizations can include:

• Lucrative contracts to supply goods and services
• Lucrative leases (especially for oil, gas, and mining)
• Favorable government policies or regulations
  • Exemptions from regulations for worker safety, food safety, water quality, or environmental concerns
  • Low tax & tariff rates
  • Low property tax valuations
  • Subsidies
  • Protection from competition through
    • sole-source procurement processes
    • monopoly or oligopoly control of a market
    • regulation
  • Increased demand driven by mandates or by regulation
• Access to insider information from officials about to make policy changes
• Favorable judicial rulings
• Use of government facilities for personal profit

Non-partisan advantages for government officials can include:

• Cash
• Financial advantages
  • Insider information gained as a part of official inquiries
  • Highly favorable business deals
  • Below market prices for real estate and other assets
  • Zero-interest loans that might never need to be repaid
  • Discounts on college tuition for an official’s children
• Gifts
  • Expensive vacations
  • Cars, boats, airplanes
  • Houses and other real estate
  • Favoritism in college admissions for an official’s children
• Sex

Partisan gains for government officials can include:

• Loyalty to government officials from their subordinate officials, employees, or citizens
• More votes
• The repression of some voting blocs
• A discount on advertising, not available to others
• Good press
• Illegally obtained “dirt” on the opposition
• Party endorsement
• Party financing
• Party campaign labor and other services
• Punishment of disloyal officials

Some partisan gains benefit entire political parties:

• Corrupt funding:
  • Examples: The Democratic Party of New York extracted substantial financing in the mid-1800s through embezzlement organized by the “Tammany Hall” political machine headed by William “Boss” Tweed. The machine provided jobs to supporters who then generated illicit income for party bosses and mobilized voters to maintain the machine’s power.
  • In Germany, Christian Democratic Union party officials accepted payments in 1991 from an agent for Thyssen-Henschel to promote armored vehicle sales to Saudi Arabia and Canada.
  • The Partido Popular party of Spain charged construction companies illegal commissions on public contracts to finance the party in the late 1980s through the early 2000s.
  • Testimonies from official inquiries indicated that the company Bosasa (now African Global Operations) paid monthly bribes ranging from $250,000 to $400,000 specifically to the ruling ANC and its senior officials between 1999 and 2016 to maintain its dominance in government contracting.
• Access to government resources – easiest when there is no distinction between the government and the ruling party:
  • Example: Assets from the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) sovereign wealth fund were systematically embezzled and diverted globally. While heavily tied to the Prime Minister, the funds were used to boost the party’s popularity and fund partisan political activities, as well as some personal expenses of some officials.
• Voter manipulation:
  • Example: The Cosa Nostra has a long history of violently repressing voters, activists, and leaders associated with political parties that opposed its interests While the Mafia often used bribery to secure votes for friendly parties like the Christian Democrats (DC), it simultaneously used terror to suppress the opposition. In return, Cosa Nostra construction firms got extra contracts while the Cosa Nostra itself was protected from criminal prosecution.

What are the risks and costs of getting caught?

The risk of getting caught depends on whether enough people are providing oversight on our elected and unelected officials. Ideally, those providing oversight should include citizens, the media, and each branch of the federal, state, and local governments.

Oversight, in turn, is easier when there is transparency. Government data on budgets and procurement contracts with private firms should be available to everyone. Freedom of information laws should be in place and honored without bureaucratic obstacles. Campaign finances should be fully disclosed on a timely basis.

The cost of getting caught is determined by the laws in place, the willingness of officials to enforce them, and their capacity to do so.

For elected officials, getting caught can create extra costs in terms of reputation and reduced electability. That, in turn, depends upon whether citizens keep an eye on their elected officials, whether they are aware of the costs that corruption adds to our daily lives, and how willing they are to punish their favorite leaders for corruption.

There are many federal, state, and local laws against various forms of corruption by various types of officials. We cannot summarize them all. We have, however, summarized many of the key laws found in the U.S. Constitution and in the laws of the federal government in Annex B. Whether sufficient will exists to enforce these laws is a matter entirely up to the push and pull between citizens and their elected officials. (See Section 3 below.)

Willing officials empowered by the law must also have the capacity to effectively investigate and enforce wrongdoing.  That capacity flows from adequate resources: financing, adequate numbers of appropriately trained and experienced staff, and access to information and data. The risk and cost of getting caught is much lower without these.

Does less democracy make corruption more likely?

Public corruption tends to be highest in the countries with the least accountable representation and weakest protections against tyranny, according to Transparency International. (See graph.) How does this work?

Let’s start with a very short review. The American system of government is built on two big ideas: accountable representation through regular elections and numerous protections against government tyranny.  These protections include the separation and sharing of powers between Congress, the president, and the courts, along with civil liberties, civil rights, and states’ rights.  (For more details, see our other short courses here.)

Weakening the key features of our democracy lowers the risks and costs of getting caught. We list some of the ways this happens below:

• Voters will find it difficult to punish a corrupt politician by electing someone else when that politician is not faced by a credible challenger or comes from a “safe” district full of partisan supporters (See polarization below.)  
• Officials in one branch of government will not be able to exercise oversight over a corrupt official in another branch when the separation of powers has been weakened.
• Public corruption is more likely when leaders secure power over the institutions of law enforcement, including the judiciary, thereby enabling them to act with impunity.
  • Officials who can operate with minimal accountability and with minimal fear of prosecution have more opportunities for corruption because they can use their power to affect more aspects of the daily lives of local political leaders, business leaders, and citizens.
  • In such circumstances, corrupt leaders can also make it clear that some or all civil liberties and rights will be denied to anyone who challenges them.

Corruption is more likely when a government has more power, government officials have more discretion, and more money is at stake. Industry actors have more incentive to participate in corruption when a government has more influence over its operations. Conversely, corrupt officials will be more interested in businesses that require large expenditures (construction) or can generate large sales (oil) or large profits (finance, real estate, technology).

In general, if corruption spreads and deepens within a government, it will become increasingly focused on enriching the kleptocracy and/or rewarding their allies and punishing their enemies. Corrupt partners expect valuable favors in return for helping put these officials in power. At the same time, corrupt officials expect a steady stream of rewards from their partners, not only for the favors they grant but also for not turning their powers against those partners.

Corruption can also operate as a control mechanism – or loyalty assurance — within a public institution. Officials serving in a corrupt administrationwill be trusted by other corrupt officials if they also partake in corruption, but they must toe the line politically. If they challenge their political boss, then their boss will ensure they are convicted of corrupt acts or other crimes.

Note: While weakening the institutions of democracy aids corruption, it is also true that corruption can aid that incapacitation. For example, loyalty to a leader bent on weakening the separation of powers could be rewarded by favoritism in the allocation of public contracts, licenses, and concessions, kickbacks, personal benefits such as government cars and homes, and other corrupt schemes.

Special topic: Campaign financing and corruption

Large financial contributions to political campaigns are thought by many to be an example of legal corruption. Thus, many Americans believe that many elected officials are more beholden to their donors than they are to the citizens they are meant to serve. Here is a short summary of how the Supreme Court rulings on campaign contributions changed over time.

The Tillman Act of 1907 (34 Stat. 864) was the first campaign finance law in the United States. The law prohibited national banks and federally chartered corporations from contributing to election campaigns at any level, national, state, or local. It prohibited “any corporation whatever” from making contributions in elections for president and the House of Representatives.

Buckley v. Valeo (1976) was the first Supreme Court decision to say that campaign expenditures, or money spent to influence voters, is a type of “speech” and that the only permissible justification for most limits on money in politics was to prevent outright bribery, or as the Court’s opinion called it, “quid pro quo corruption.”

FEC v. National Conservative PAC (1985). The Court struck down a federal law that limited independent expenditures by political action committees (PACs). Because such expenditures were independent and not coordinated with a candidate, they did not pose the same risk of “quid pro quo” corruption as direct contributions. As the Court’s opinion said, “The hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo: dollars for political favors.” This view was foundational for the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases below.

The Citizens United v. United States (2010) decision went further. The majority opinion stated, “This Court now concludes that independent expenditures (meaning political spending not coordinated with any political campaign), including those made by corporations [our italics], do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.”

McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) struck down overall limits on how much individuals could donate to all federal candidates, parties, and PACs combined. By so doing, the court significantly increased the potential influence wealthy donors could bring to bear on an electoral contest.

Does polarization make corruption more likely?

Polarization amplifies perceived wins and losses and breeds hypocrisy about what is fair play. Knowing this, some politicians use polarization, and indeed often stir up polarization, as an excuse for weakening accountable representation and protections against tyranny – as a way to reduce the risks and costs of getting caught in corrupt acts. The net result is that strongly polarized countries tend to have more public corruption than those with the least polarization. (See graph.)

• When two groups trust each other with their shared future, and thus a shared identity, they can tolerate their ideological differences and find ways to collaborate or compromise. When this condition does not hold, people can reach a point where they tend to view those from the other group with deep distrust and dislike. The other group becomes the enemy. Political scientists refer to this emotional response as affective political polarization. In such situations, any gain one side achieves is an emotional victory over their enemy. By the same token, they tend to see any loss by their enemy as a win for themselves.  
• When people see the other group as an obstacle to their goals (think legislative gridlock), if not an existential threat, then they are willing to look the other way when their politicians and officials bend the rules to win elections, gain more power, or deny civil liberties and rights to their opponents. At the same time, they are extremely intolerant of such behavior by politicians and officials from their opposition.  We refer to this behavior as “democracy hypocrisy.”
• When politicians learn that affective polarization makes winning by any means acceptable to their political base, some will give it a try. Some will successfully gain or consolidate power by weakening accountable representation, the separation of powers, civil liberties, and civil rights. Some of these leaders come to realize that their increased power puts them in a strong position to demand and dispense valuable favors. And, as explained in Section 2.C above, the weakened institutions of the republic will reduce the costs of any challenges from their opposition.

Note: Affective political polarization is not the only excuse leaders use to justify weakening democracy. Some other options include foreign enemies (real or imagined), natural disasters, and government ineptitude (actual or believed).

HOW YOU CAN HELP FIGHT PUBLIC CORRUPTION

The basic strategy for fighting public corruption involves increasing the risks and costs of getting caught and reducing the “democracy hypocrisy” arising from political polarization.

There are lots of ways that you can contribute to the fight. We lay out several options below.

Increasing the risk of getting caught

• Monitoring and Reporting
  • Support independent investigative journalism that reports on your local and state government activities. They will be well-positioned to investigate corruption cases.  Most independent investigative journalism sources meet the following criteria:
  
  
  • 1) Focused on the public interest, seeks to hold power to account.
  
  
  • 2) Free from corporate, government, or political influence.
  
  
  • 3) Transparently cites sources, reveals potential conflicts of interest, and adheres to ethical guidelines, such as not paying for information.
  
  
  • 4) Relies on primary sources, including public records, legal documents, financial filings, and data sets.
  
  
  • 5) Information is verified through multiple, independent, and cross-referenced sources.
  
  
  • 6) Attempts to include, or explain the inability to reach, all relevant parties, even when information is highly critical.
  
  
  • Citizens can act as “watchdogs” by observing government performance, identifying irregularities, and reporting corruption through complaint mechanisms, hotlines, or investigative journalism. Thus, speaking truth to power.
  
  
  • Participation in social audits, citizen scorecards, and public expenditure tracking surveys. These methods allow you to directly assess government spending and service delivery.
  • Using freedom-of-information laws to demand transparency in budgets, contracts, and decision-making.
• Whistleblowing
  • Individual citizens (including public servants) can expose corruption within institutions.
  • Supporting protective laws and mechanisms ensures whistleblowers can come forward safely.
• Participation in Oversight Bodies
  • Serving on school boards, health committees, procurement monitoring groups, or anti-corruption councils.
  • Involvement in citizen advisory panels that oversee budgeting, contracting, or policy implementation.

Increasing the cost of getting caught

• Voting for Clean Legislators and Executives
  • If you know a candidate for a political office is likely to be corrupt, you can choose not to vote for them.
  • It is especially important to have clean members of the Senate in Congress and in your state legislature. They have a duty to vote for or against nominees to important offices, including many judicial offices. 
• Voting for Clean Judges
  • Citizens can vote for state and local judges in many, but not all, states. You can choose to support those most likely to resist corruption.
• Changing the laws:
  • You can encourage your elected representatives to vote for higher penalties for corruption. In some states, you may also be able to vote directly for ballot measures that increase the costs of corruption.

Pushing back against democracy hypocrisy

Americans afflicted by affective political polarization are often willing to excuse or even support public officials who weaken essential features of democracy to gain political advantage.

You might be one of these people. If so, you have our sympathies. There is a vast industry that profits from whipping up conflict between Americans: many media owners, media personalities, political operatives, political candidates, many social media owners, influencers, attention-seeking bloggers, and even some foreign governments. (See our related short course on Fear-Mongering here.)

However, given the strong likelihood that you are being manipulated, there are ways you can push back and gain allies.

• One thing that helps is to double-check if the other side is as bad as you think. Lots of research shows red and blue partisans consistently overestimate the depth of their disagreements. By way of proof, check out the “Similarity Hub” created by AllSides and More Like US. It lists hundreds of topics where more than half of the people on the left, right, and center agree.
• To gain allies, we strongly encourage respectful language, whether face-to-face or online. Respect does not need to imply agreement; you can respectfully disagree. But if you want other people to be willing to listen to you and join you, then know that respect is the key that opens the door.

Other Important Options

• Join or support anti-corruption organizations.
  • Caution: By definition, any organization fighting public corruption must focus on and /or work with the government of the day.
  • The key issue you need to ask is whether they consistently fight corruption over time, regardless of which party controls the government.
  • Other criteria you might want to consider: Are they focused on the federal government, your state government, or your local government? How do they fight – lawsuits, legislative reforms, whistleblowing, educating the public, or some other means? How long have they been in the fight? What kinds of skills and talent can they bring to bear?  How well-funded are they?
• Join or support organizations (non-profit or otherwise) that advocate for transparency, accountability, and governance reforms.
• You can amplify citizen oversight by working to ensure that:
  • You and all citizens can vote without undue hardship
  • Electoral candidates respect the constitutional separation of powers, due process, civil liberties, and civil rights
• Your impact can be strengthened by joining or building coalitions across civic, business, and faith-based groups with goals such as:
  • Supporting independent investigative journalism.
  • Rewarding ethical companies and boycotting corrupt ones.
  • Establishing and enforcing corporate responsibility standards.
• If necessary, mass movements, protests, and petitions can pressure governments to adopt anti-corruption reforms.

ANNEX A: WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION?

This annex lists many kinds of public corruption. They include businesses and officials trading favors (or threats) for private or partisan gain, many non-transactional abuses of public office, and the special case of corruption involving political parties.

Businesses and officials trading favors (or threats).

A business may illegally buy some service or policy favor from a government official that is not available to all businesses. Alternatively, a government official may illegally offer or provide a favor to a business in exchange for a private gain. They can also use their official power(s) to threaten a business.

• Bribery involves the improper use of gifts and favors from a business or organization meant to motivate an official to act in their favor. The types of favors given by the briber are diverse. They may include money, gifts, real estate, zero-interest loans, promotions, prestige, sexual favors, employee benefits, company shares, privileges, entertainment, or employment.

For example, between 2017 and 2020, FirstEnergy executives funneled approximately $60 million into a dark-money organization controlled by then-Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and his associates. The funds were used for Householder’s personal expenses and political operations. In return for the money, Householder championed and passed a $1.3 billion legislative package that imposed new fees on Ohio utility customers to subsidize the company’s failing nuclear power plants. Householder was arrested in 2020 and subsequently convicted in 2023, and was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison. FirstEnergy agreed to pay a $230 million fine, admitting that it had conspired to pay bribes to public officials in exchange for favorable legislation.

• A kickback is usually a pre-negotiated percentage of a contract given after the action has been taken to compensate for preferential treatment.
  
  Randy Cunningham, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, used his position to secure millions of dollars in government contracts and increase funding for favored companies. In return for the assistance, Cunningham received millions of dollars in the form of cash, lavish gifts, and luxury items, many of which were provided after the official actions were completed. He received a Rolls-Royce, a yacht, and fine antiques. Cunningham pleaded guilty in 2005 and was sentenced to over eight years in prison.
• Influence peddling: actively offering preferential treatment for a business or businesses in exchange for gifts and favors.

For example, in the mid-2000s, Congressman William J. Jefferson was involved in a major corruption case where he was found to have solicited and accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes from various companies in exchange for using his official position to advance their business interests in the U.S., Africa, and the Middle East. He was convicted in 2009 on 11 of 16 corruption counts and sentenced to 13 years in prison.

• Extortion involves making threats to gain power, money, or services.

Rob McCord, the Democratic State Treasurer of Pennsylvania, was running for governor in 2014 and needed to raise significant campaign funds. He used his official authority as the State Treasurer to threaten two private businesses with economic harm if they did not contribute $125,000 in campaign donations. He pleaded guilty in 2015, and in 2018, he was sentenced to 30 months in prison.

• Blackmail is a form of extortion. It involves threats to reveal embarrassing, damaging, or incriminating information to gain something of value.
  • Example: J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI, was able to wield extraordinary power from 1935 to 1972 by blackmailing presidents and politicians with compromising information such as extramarital affairs or alleged sexual orientations. He also leaked salacious rumors to the press to ruin their reputations and influence public opinion about people he considered “radicals” or subversives. As president Truman recorded in his diary on May 12, 1945, “We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. F.B.I. is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in sex life scandles [sic] and plain blackmail when they should be catching criminals.”

The revolving door between government and business

The “revolving door” between government and the private sector offers benefits—such as the exchange of expertise—but also creates serious corruption risks. Conflicts of interest are especially likely in lucrative industries that interact frequently with government, including defense, finance, fossil fuels, health care, law, media, and high-tech sectors.

Conflicts arise in both directions. Private firms often hire former government officials who understand bureaucratic processes and maintain influential connections, giving those firms advantages unavailable to ordinary citizens. Conversely, government agencies and legislative offices may hire former private-sector employees who retain financial ties or loyalties to prior employers. These individuals may shape regulations, subsidies, tax policies, lending decisions, or procurement contracts in ways that favor former clients or industries. Over time, such patterns can result in regulatory capture, where agencies serve industry interests rather than the public.

The revolving door also encourages anticipatory corruption. Government officials who expect to pursue lucrative private-sector jobs may avoid strict oversight or grant favorable treatment to industries they regulate, even without explicit promises of employment. Similarly, some private firms—particularly in finance and defense—provide incentives that encourage employees to seek government roles. Individuals seeking appointed (rather than merit-based) government positions may also engage in bribery or display overt partisan loyalty to improve their prospects.

There are several reform options that can reduce the risks from the revolving door.

For individuals entering government, agencies can require recusal from matters involving former employers or clients. Formal ethics screens or firewalls can prevent new hires from sharing in profits tied to prior government-related work. These safeguards may require detailed financial disclosure and, in significant cases, divestiture of conflicting interests. Expanding competitive exams and technical assessments for government positions can strengthen merit-based hiring. Governments may also impose temporary bans on hiring recent industry lobbyists, codify such restrictions into permanent law, and train HR officials to detect “reverse revolving door” conflicts during recruitment.

For individuals leaving government, cooling-off periods before engaging in lobbying should be lengthened and applied regardless of salary level: there is evidence that some officials will sacrifice a higher salary if it allows them to evade the cooling period rule. Restrictions should extend beyond direct lobbying to include behind-the-scenes consulting designed to influence policy. Policymakers might also prohibit contingency fees that reward lobbyists only for achieving specific outcomes. Stronger civil penalties for violations of lobbying disclosure laws and strict enforcement of gift bans can further deter misconduct.

Finally, enforcement should be centralized to ensure uniform compliance. Agencies could track former officials’ subsequent employment and conduct retrospective reviews for signs of favoritism. A public, searchable database of former officials’ career paths and clients would promote transparency and accountability.

Officials abusing their powers for partisan gain.

A government official may offer or provide a service or policy favor to a business, organization, or officials in other government units in exchange for partisan advantage.

• Clientelism is a system of reciprocal relationships between a powerful patron and their less powerful clients, based on a specific exchange of favors, loyalty, or support. Clientelism, however, does not always involve government officials. Patronage, by contrast, is a form of clientelism that is available only to government officials.
• Patronage occurs when high government officials reward political supporters with state resources and public positions. The two most frequent forms of patronage are political appointments and procurement contracts.
  • Presidents, governors, and mayors can use their powers to appoint people to lesser offices in exchange for gifts, loyalty, or obedience. Some of these offices offer substantial power, privilege, or prestige. Patronage is usually legal but can be viewed as corrupt when appointees are selected only for their loyalty or for the money and favors they give to the appointing official, rather than their ability to perform well in their jobs. (See also Part E, where we discuss laws against the abuse of patronage.) For example, in the early United States, most presidents operated under something called the “spoils system.” This meant that when new presidents took office, they often replaced federal employees who had worked under a previous administration with loyalists from their own party. Federal employees could face firing if they didn’t demonstrate their loyalty to the ruling party by obeying party bosses or donating money to campaigns. Charles Guiteau, a disgruntled spoils system supporter, assassinated President James A. Garfield in 1881 for not giving him a job. The shooting helped convince Garfield’s successor, Chester A. Arthur, to reform the civil service and begin dismantling the spoils system. (See the Pendleton Act (1883), also in Annex B below.)
  • Firing government officials for disloyalty may also be legal in some cases, but it is also often seen as a politically corrupt act when those fired were originally hired only for their competency.
  • Many government officials have the power to procure goods and services. In most countries, including the U.S., the laws require suppliers to compete for most procurement contracts as a way to maximize quality and minimize costs. Some officials find ways around these laws to steer contracts to their political allies and deny contracts to their opponents. There are many examples in the book ” Corruption in America: A Fifty-Ring Circus, listed in the sources below.
• Blackmail can also be used for partisan purposes. For example, the Nixon administration directed the Internal Revenue Service to conduct invasive audits of political enemies, including journalists, activists, and those on a formal “enemies list” of approximately 20 major opponents, plus hundreds of others. The intention was to use the prolonged, stressful process of a federal audit as a form of punishment and intimidation, rather than pursuing genuine evidence of a crime.
• Retribution for actions taken by a business, private organization, or another government official or government unit. For example, a New Jersey official was sentenced to 18 months in prison for scheming to punish a local mayor deemed not loyal enough to former Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ).

Non-transactional abuses of office for private or partisan gains.

Some kinds of abuse do not involve citizens or businesses at all. Officials can sometimes direct the machinery of government to act in ways that bring them partisan advantages and/or personal gains. Here are some examples:

• Partisan Activity While on Duty:
  • Engaging in political activities such as using government offices for fundraising for a political campaign, posting political content on social media, or wearing campaign gear, while serving in a public position.
  • Using one’s official title in a political endorsement, or
  • Coercing subordinates to participate in political activity, to contribute to a political party, or to join a political party.
    • For example, Harry Hopkins, an ally of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and head of the Works Progress Administration, pressured WPA employees into working on the campaigns of candidates who were allies or supporters of Roosevelt in a Kentucky Senate election. This abuse led to a congressional investigation and the passage of the Hatch Act of 1939, which places strict limits on the political activities of federal employees to ensure federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan manner.
• Abuse of public assets: Using government buildings, vehicles, machinery, and software for partisan purposes.
  • An example is using a government aircraft for free for private purposes or to travel to a political campaign. Other examples include displaying a picture of a partisan candidate in a federal office, using government premises for partisan campaign purposes, and using a government computer to send campaign emails.
• Cronyism is awarding positions, jobs, contracts, loans, privileges, or advantages to friends or colleagues.
• Embezzlement involves one or more officials with access to funds or assets illegally taking control of them.
• Favoritism involves the hiring or promotion of a friend or political ally to a role they are not qualified for.
• Nepotism involves the hiring or promotion of a family member to a role they are not qualified for.
• Graft occurs when funds intended for public projects are intentionally misdirected to maximize the benefits to private interests of a government official.

Political party corruption.

Parties may seek advantage by offering favors to financial donors or by offering money and services to voters.

• Bribing a political party: A political party may accept a large campaign donation made with the expectation that, when in power, it will do something to favor the donor.
  • The Albany Regency, for example, authorized charters for banks in exchange for political and financial support.
  • William Willett Jr. (New York) was convicted in 1912 of bribery for paying state Democratic Party leaders for a seat on the New York State Supreme Court bench.
  • A political party or candidate might also accept money from foreign governments, foreign parties, organized crime, or terrorist groups.
    • Extensive investigations revealed that agents of the People’s Republic of China sought to direct contributions to the Democratic National Committee for use in the 1996 presidential campaign. The DNC was eventually forced to return over $2.8 million in illegal or improper donations. The investigations also included allegations of a $2.2 million loan guarantee to a Republican National Committee organization from a Hong Kong businessman. While the RNC was not prosecuted, Senate investigators characterized it as a knowing solicitation of foreign money infused into the U.S. election process.
• Bribing voters: Some parties have periodically traded money or services for votes. This practice largely ended when the secret ballot became widely used: parties and their candidates could no longer monitor how people voted.
• De facto bribery of newspapers: Before advertising became the primary revenue source, many newspapers were openly partisan and received direct subsidies or lucrative government printing contracts from political parties. In addition, editors or reporters sometimes worked part-time for state legislators or members of Congress. Both practices inherently compromised the independence of many newspapers.
• Extortion of businesses: When one political party effectively controls a government, it can force business owners to hand over part of their profits to the party. This can be done by threatening tax investigations, heavier regulation, withholding licenses, or interference in corporate affairs via any shares the government may own in a corporation.
• Extortion of voters: Parties or leaders can also threaten to withhold services if votes are not received in sufficient numbers. This practice is made easier when one political party effectively controls the government or when the dividing line between government and party assets is blurred.
  • Example: In Mexico, under president Cárdenas, peasants could not receive agricultural necessities such as seeds, fertilizers, credit, and insurance unless they supported the ruling party.
• Abuse of public assets: When one political party effectively controls the government, it can sometimes blur the distinction between government assets and party assets. For example, party leaders in government could regularly use government airplanes to attend political party events. Another example, seen in some countries, is the political leadership using state-owned media to promote their party.

Gerrymandering: The verb “gerrymander” means dividing or arranging (a territorial unit) into election districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage. The practice is widely considered politically corrupt. It has the appearance of an abuse of official positions or public trust for illegitimate partisan gain.
Even so, gerrymandering has been legal from the beginning of our nation. This outcome is due in part to the lack of legal options for challenging the practice. The U.S. judicial system viewed redistricting disputes as inherently political issues, not legal ones. The concept of challenging a map in federal court for partisan reasons did not exist; it was considered a matter to be settled by the legislative branch or voters. The Supreme Court did eventually accept some cases, but went back and forth on whether gerrymandering was a political issue off-limits to the courts and whether it was possible to establish a clear, judicially manageable standard for determining when a gerrymander was unconstitutional. As of 2025, partisan gerrymanders are legal, racial gerrymanders are illegal, and there is no clear, manageable standard acceptable to the courts.

ANNEX B: LAWS AGAINST CORRUPTION

This annex contains two sections. One summarizes the portions of the U.S. Constitution that are aimed at fighting public corruption. The other is a list of some of the main federal laws against various forms of public corruption.

The U.S. Constitution

The U.S. Constitution includes several clauses against some forms of corruption by some federal officials:

• Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President, and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
  • The phrase “civil officers” includes cabinet-level executives and all federal judges but excludes military officers.
  • The Constitution further specifies that the House is responsible for impeachment (indictment) and the Senate is responsible for conviction.
  • That division of responsibilities makes conviction difficult.
• Article I, Section 4: This clause empowers states to set the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding federal elections, but gives Congress the power to “make or alter” such regulations. The Framers gave Congress this power out of concern that states might establish unfair election procedures. It allows Congress to override state laws that could facilitate electoral corruption.
• Article I, Section 6: Prevents members of Congress from serving in the Executive branch and vice versa. The original purpose of this ineligibility clause was to protect the separation of powers between the branches of government, prevent corruption, and ensure legislative accountability. By preventing members of Congress from holding other federal offices simultaneously, it stops Congress from creating jobs or increasing salaries with the expectation that they would be appointed to them. This clause maintains a clear distinction between legislative and executive power and promotes the idea that one person should not hold conflicting roles. 
• Article II, Section 2, Clause 2: This clause details how federal officers are appointed, requiring the President to have the “Advice and Consent of the Senate” for principal officers. This clause is meant to act as a check against presidents trying to pack the government with loyalists.
• Article II, Section 1, Clause 7: An emolument is any form of compensation for employment. The purpose of the domestic emoluments clause is to protect the president from influence that Congress or the states could exert. Congress may neither increase nor decrease the president’s compensation during his term, thus preventing the legislature from using its control over the president’s salary to exert influence over him. To further preserve presidential independence, the clause also prohibits a sitting president from receiving emoluments from federal or state governments, except for his fixed salary.
• Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: The purpose of the foreign emoluments clause is to prevent corruption and limit foreign influence on federal officers. The clause grew out of the framers’ experience with the European custom of gift-giving to foreign diplomats.
• The Fourth Amendment prohibition against “unreasonable searches and seizures” and the requirement for warrants based on “probable cause” arose from the founders’ experience with the abuse of power by the British Crown. These protections against arbitrary government intrusion limit the ability of officials to harass or improperly persecute individuals.

Federal Laws

We have put together a list of some federal laws against public corruption, arranged by various categories of corruption. Some are repeated because they apply to more than one category of corruption. It’s a long list.

Form of Corruption	Federal Law(s)	Description
Blackmail	18 U.S.C. § 873 (Blackmail)	Specifically prohibits demanding or receiving money or something of value under a threat of informing about a violation of U.S. law. Other statutes, such as those governing interstate communications, can also apply.
Bribery	15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1, et seq. (The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.)	Prohibits American companies and individuals from bribing foreign government officials to obtain or retain business.
	Title III of the International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001	Requires financial institutions to take extra steps to prevent and report suspicious activity, especially concerning senior foreign political figures who may be involved in bribery or embezzlement. The act also strengthens measures to prevent foreign corrupt officials from using the U.S. financial system and facilitates the repatriation of stolen assets.
Bribery	18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bribery of public officials)	A core anti-corruption statute that prohibits giving, offering, or accepting anything of value with the intent to influence an official act. Other statutes, like the Hobbs Act and those addressing mail/wire fraud, may also apply.
	18 U.S.C. § 666 (Theft or Bribery Concerning Federal Programs)	Addresses theft or bribery related to programs, projects, or organizations that receive federal funds. In Snyder v. United States (2024), the Supreme Court ruled that this law forbids bribes to state and local officials but does not make it a crime for those officials to accept gratuities for their past acts.
	18 U.S.C. § 1952 (Travel Act)	Makes it a crime to use interstate travel or facilities to promote or conduct illegal activities, including commercial bribery.
Bribery and Kickbacks	18 U.S.C. § 1346 (Honest services fraud)	While a broad concept, some abuses of discretion can be prosecuted as a scheme to defraud the public of the “intangible right of honest services” through bribes or kickbacks.
Bribery or Theft	18 U.S.C. § 666 (Bribery or Theft Concerning Federal Programs)	Addresses theft or bribery related to programs, projects, or organizations that receive federal funds.
Campaign Financing	Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)	These and subsequent campaign finance laws regulate the funding of federal elections and place limits on contributions and require public disclosure.
Clientelism, Patronage, Nepotism, Favoritism, Cronyism	Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 Prohibited Personnel Practice 7	These are addressed by civil service laws that require federal employees to be hired and promoted based on merit, not on personal or political relationships. The practice of appointing relatives is specifically proscribed by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
Embezzlement of Public Assets	18 U.S.C. § 641 and § 648 (Public money, property, or records)	Title 18, Section 641 of the U.S. Code broadly prohibits the theft, embezzlement, or conversion of U.S. government money, property, or records. It also criminalizes the unauthorized sale or disposal of government property and receiving or concealing government property that is known to be stolen. Title 18, Section 648 of the U.S. Code prohibits federal officers and other persons entrusted with public money from misusing those funds.
Extortion	Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951)	The Hobbs Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1951, prohibits robbery or extortion that interferes with interstate or foreign commerce. For a conviction, prosecutors must show that the crime impacted interstate or foreign commerce, the defendant had wrongful intent, and the crime involved obtaining “property,” which can be tangible or intangible.
Influence Peddling	18 U.S.C. § 201 (Bribery of public officials and witnesses)	It is illegal to corruptly give, offer, or promise anything of value to a federal public official with the intent to:  Influence any official act.Influence the official to commit or aid in committing any fraud on the U.S.Induce the official to do or omit any act in violation of their lawful duty.  Section 201 also prohibits federal public officials from corruptly demanding or accepting bribes in return for being influenced in an official act, committing fraud, or violating their duty. Officials are also prohibited from accepting illegal gratuities (rewards) for any official action they take.
	Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) (22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.)	Requires individuals or entities acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to disclose their relationship and activities to the U.S. government.
Graft	Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951)	Graft is a broad term for the illegal acquisition of gain from public office. It is often prosecuted using multiple statutes, including the Hobbs Act for extortion and the RICO Act for organized corruption schemes.
	Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968)	These laws target organized crime and racketeering. It prohibits using a pattern of illegal activities to profit from an enterprise and allows for severe criminal penalties, including lengthy imprisonment and forfeiture of assets. The law also provides a private right of action for victims to sue for treble damages. Using a public office to solicit and accept bribes and favors in exchange for political influence is considered a form of racketeering.
Kickbacks	Anti-Kickback Act of 1986 (41 U.S.C. chapter 87) 18 U.S.C. § 874 (Kickbacks from public works employees)	The Anti-Kickback Act criminalizes the offering or acceptance of kickbacks in connection with federal contracts. Separate laws also apply to kickbacks in federal healthcare programs.
Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud	Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud Statutes (18 U.S.C. § 1341, 1343, 1346)	These statutes can be used to prosecute public corruption, particularly when a scheme to defraud involves the use of the mail or wire communications.
Partisan Political Activity While on Duty	Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. § 7321 et seq.)	Limits the political activities of most federal employees and some state and local workers to ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion.
Vote-buying	18 U.S.C. § 597 (Expenditures to influence voting) Federal election laws.	Prohibits knowingly paying or offering to pay a person to vote in any federal election. Violators can face imprisonment and fines.

SOURCES:

Books and Reports

Barrington, R., David-Barrett, E., Power, S., & Hough, D. (2022). Understanding corruption. University of Sussex.

Dincer, O., & Johnston, M. (2025). Corruption in America: A Fifty-Ring Circus. Cambridge University Press.

GovTrack.US (2025). Legislator Misconduct Database.

Transparency International (2025). Corruption Perceptions Index, 2024. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2024

Transparency International. (2025). Under the radar: Corruption’s role in fueling arms diversion. https://ti-defence.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Under-the-Radar-Corruptions-Role-in-Fueling-Arms-Diversion.pdf

Transparency International (2022). CPI 2022: Corruption as a fundamental threat to peace and security.https://www.transparency.org/en/news/cpi-2022-corruption-fundamental-threat-peace-security

Transparency International (2013). Fighting Judicial Corruption: Topic Guide.

Transparency International (2013). Global Corruption Barometer.

Transparency International (2010). Regulating the Revolving Door. Working Paper #06/2010.

Transparency International (2007). Global Corruption Barometer.

Vogl, F. (2012). Waging war on corruption: Inside the movement fighting the abuse of power. Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.

Articles

Ackerman, S. (1998). The Vote That Failed. The Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-vote-that-failed-159427766/

Albertus, M., Diaz-Cayeros, A., Magaloni, B., & Weingast, B. R. (2016). Authoritarian survival and poverty traps: Land reform in Mexico. World Development, 77, 154-170.

Baughman, J. (2011). The Rise and Fall of Partisan Journalism. https://ethics.sjmc.wisc.edu/2011/04/20/the-fall-and-rise-of-partisan-journalism/#_edn9

Buckley v. Valeo (1976). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1975/75-436

Citizens United v. United States (2010). https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205

History.com (2025). Crédit Mobilier. https://www.history.com/articles/credit-mobilier

FEC v. National Conservative PAC (1985). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1984/83-1032

Ferraz, C., & Finan, F. (2011). Electoral accountability and corruption: Evidence from the audits of local governments. American Economic Review, 101(4), 1274-1311.

History.com (2025). How a Presidential Assassination Led to the End of the Spoils System.https://www.history.com/articles/garfield-assassination-spoils-system-reforms-federal-employees

History.com (2025). How the Gilded Age’s Top 1 Percent Thrived on Corruption. https://www.history.com/articles/gilded-age-corruption-corporate-wealth

History.com (2025). Ulysses S. Grant, the Whiskey Ring, and America’s First Special Prosecutor. https://www.history.com/articles/the-whiskey-ring-and-americas-first-special-prosecutor

History.com (2025). What Is the Hatch Act and Why Was It Established in 1939? https://www.history.com/articles/hatch-act-fdr-politics

Investopedia. (n.d.). Why these industries are prone to corruption.  https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/072115/why-these-industries-are-prone-corruption.asp

Kalmenovitz, J., Vij, S., & Xiao, K. (2022). Closing the revolving door. SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2024/program/paper/8ERf8E3a

Kanthak, K. (2020). 19th-century voting was marked by bribery, violence, and chaos. That’s why we have laws now. Ohio Capital Journal. https://bgindependentmedia.org/19th-century-voting-was-marked-by-bribery-violence-and-chaos-thats-why-we-have-laws-now/

Leef. G. (2018). Corruption and Government. CATO Institute.
https://www.cato.org/regulation/summer-2018/republic-virtue#

 McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014).
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-536

Momoniat, I. (2023). How and Why Did State Capture and Massive Corruption Occur in South Africa? https://blog-pfm.imf.org/en/pfmblog/2023/04/how-and-why-did-state-capture-and-massive-corruption-occur-in-south-africa

Morrissey, W. 2025. Corruption and the Constitution: Principle of Constitutional Law and a Foundation of a Virtuous and Moral People.https://constitutingamerica.org/90day-fp-corruption-and-the-constitution-principle-of-constitutional-law-and-a-foundation-of-a-virtuous-and-moral-people-guest-essayist-will-morrisey/

Nash, B. (2010) Regulatory capture. Jargon Alert. The Richmond Federal Reserve.

NBC News. (2009). South Carolina governor’s plane use questioned. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32349329

Polarization Research Lab. (2025). Why polarization threatens democracy. https://polarizationresearchlab.org/why-polarization-threatens-democracy/

U.S. Department of Commerce. (2025). U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. https://www.trade.gov/us-foreign-corrupt-practices-act

U.S. Department of Justice. (2006). Former congressman Cunningham sentenced to more than 8 years in prison. https://www.justice.gov/archive/tax/usaopress/2006/txdv06cas60303.1.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice. (2009). Former congressman William J. Jefferson sentenced to 13 Years in prison for bribery and other charges. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/former-congressman-william-j-jefferson-sentenced-13-years-prison-bribery-and-other-charges

U.S. Department of Justice. (2017). Former Port Authority Official Sentenced for His Role in Scheme to Punish Fort Lee Mayor for Not Endorsing Governor’s Re-Election.https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/pr/former-port-authority-official-sentenced-his-role-scheme-punish-fort-lee-mayor-not-0#:~:text=Wildstein%20pleaded%20guilty%20to%20two%20counts%20of,the%20reductions%20were%20for%20a%20traffic%20study

U.S. Department of Justice. (2023). Former Ohio House Speaker sentenced to 20 years in prison for leading racketeering conspiracy involving $60 million in bribes.https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdoh/pr/former-ohio-house-speaker-sentenced-20-years-prison-leading-racketeering-conspiracy

U.S. Department of Justice. (2025). Bribery of Public Officials. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2041-bribery-public-officials

U.S. House. (1995). Lobbying Disclosure Act. https://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov/lda.html

U.S. House. (2025). The Select Committee on the Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/ZS/ZS00/20240416/117142/HRPT-118-1.pdf

Wikipedia. (2025). Boss Tweed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Tweed

Wikipedia. (2025). Corruption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption

Wikipedia. (2025). Clientelism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clientelism#

Wikipedia. (2025). Cronyism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronyism

Wikipedia. (2025). Federal Prosecution of public corruption in the United States. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_prosecution_of_public_corruption_in_the_United_States

Wikipedia. (2025). Freedom of Information Laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_information_in_the_United_States

Wikipedia. (2025). McDonnell v. United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_v._United_States

Wikipedia. (2025). Patronage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage

Wikipedia. (2025). Political Corruption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption

Wikipedia. (2025). Rich Nixon’s Enemies List. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon%27s_enemies_list#Purpose

Wikipedia. (2025). Rob McCord. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_McCord#Federal_trial_and_conviction

Wikipedia. (2025). The Pendleton Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Reform_Act Wikipedia. (2025). The Tillman Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tillman_Act_of_1907