The desire to make politics more democratic has shaped the ethical standards of public office in distinctive ways. Over time, Americans have raised the bar with respect to appropriate government behavior. Actions by public officials that were once thought to be normal and appropriate such as accepting personal gifts, letting lobbyists pick up the tab at restaurants, profiting from public projects, accepting honoraria, and the like are now prohibited and more strictly regulated at all levels. Corruption reform typically emerges from a familiar, repeating cycle of public scandals followed by tighter controls followed by subsequent rounds of scandals and reforms. The revelation that Richard Nixon received a $2 million contribution from the Associated Milk Producers of America in exchange for increasing milk price subsidies helped pass the 1971 and 1974 campaign finance reforms. More recently, Jack Abramoff’s cynical manipulation of revolving-door opportunities for congressional staff prompted the 2007 congressional lobbying reforms.

Material political corruption – using public office for financial gain – violates both governance and democratic values. When officials place their own personal gains ahead of constituent interests, it can undermine the strength of the electoral mandate and democratic accountability. It can also seriously weaken government effectiveness, efficiency, and ultimately even stability by diverting resources to private gain for those in power at the expense of the broader constituent community. I use the word “can” purposely, because, as we shall see, the prospects of personal gain can also sometimes serve larger political purposes such as facilitating cooperation and limiting stalemate, particularly in a political system with highly fractured and decentralized power. A rigidly pure democratic system can be more politically accountable and less effective at the same time. Such trade-offs make institutional choices harder.