In a recent letter to constituents, Rep. Tom DeLay writes that he has “never been found to have violated any law or rule by anyone.” He goes on to accuse his critics of trying to criminalize “politics.”
While the House majority leader and Texas Republican may or may not have broken any laws, and no firm evidence has yet been presented that he has, he still may be in serious trouble in the court of public opinion.
Our research over the past several years finds that a substantial number of Americans view political maneuvering as “corrupt,” even when it is not, on its face, illegal:
– A public official makes a phone call on behalf of an unemployed friend applying for a government job.
– A political candidate accepts a $500 donation from a wealthy business owner.
– An elected official seeks the opinion of a corporate executive who has given large campaign contributions in the past.
– A candidate attempts to win the support of voters by promising to get the potholes on their street fixed if he is elected.
Our research on voters’ views of political corruption reveals that at least one out of three would judge such actions–the stuff of everyday politics–to be “very” or “extremely” corrupt. This means that when Americans think about corruption, they don’t just think in “legalistic” terms.
That’s bad news for DeLay, who sees his problem primarily as being a legal one, as politicians often do. DeLay probably takes some solace in a recent Fox News Network poll in which some 40 percent of the public agreed that the case against DeLay is “just politics.”
But that solace might be short-lived; “just politics” does not necessarily mean the public considers his actions aboveboard.
A fear of corruption runs deep into American political history. James Madison and the other Founding Fathers considered it “corrupt” when government officials overstepped the legal boundaries of their office. For this reason, Madison and his colleagues gave the different branches of government substantial powers to police and discipline each other. This is what schoolchildren learn as “checks and balances.”
Yet within the confines of the executive and legislative branches, favoritism in politics was not to be condemned. Indeed, it was to be expected and even applauded. Under Madison’s celebrated political logic–readers may recall his forceful arguments in the Federalist Papers–ambitious representatives have strong incentives to reach out to particular constituents and interest groups (i.e., “factions”), and channel their concerns into the policymaking process.
Centuries of angling
These actions may not be pretty, and many of us would probably wish to look away. Representatives may feel compelled to engage in prodigious fundraising, network with lobbyists and activists with shrill voices, and defend their political turf–even at the risk of appearing stridently partisan, mean-spirited, or worse. From their vantage point, the architects of the Constitution would not have been surprised by all this.
So DeLay’s claim that he has done nothing wrong no matter how much “politics” he has engaged in has a long and distinguished pedigree.
Americans, however, have mixed feelings about the Founding Fathers’ legalistic understanding of corruption. Of course, lawbreaking in government needs to be punished. Opinion surveys we have taken in Iowa City, north-central Indiana, New York, New Hampshire, Miami and other locations around the country all show a common pattern: The vast majority sees illegal activity such as bribery, placing “ghost” employees on the public payroll and fraudulently claiming government benefits as “extremely corrupt.” There’s rather little controversy here.
But many Americans also question whether the unvarnished expression of “private self-interests” in politics is morally acceptable. More than 200 years ago, a number of so-called anti-Federalists believed that the country could prosper only if individuals in public life acted more virtuously than this.
But virtue often seemed hard to come by. Even the founders quickly developed factions, so by 1800 Federalist John Adams and Republican Thomas Jefferson were facing off in an incredibly nasty election in which Adams’ supporters claimed incest would be openly practiced if Jefferson won, while the Jeffersonians claimed Adams planned to marry off one of his sons to a daughter of King George III, cementing an American dynasty. The election was decided by backroom dealing in the House of Representatives, after a tie in the Electoral College.
But the tie and its resolution had twists. The first was that the tie was between Jefferson and his running mate, Aaron Burr. The law at the time didn’t require electors to say if they were voting for a president or a vice president. Whoever got the most votes was president; the runner-up was vice president. It was an unexpected but plausible result, and one that was corrected by the 12th Amendment.
Motivated by hatred
The second twist was that it was a Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, who used his influence in the House to throw the election to Jefferson because Hamilton despised Burr. Rather than highlighting the founders’ virtues, the backroom deal reinforced the idea that ambitious politicians would engage in shady politics if left unchecked.
In 1828, Andrew Jackson raised more than $1 million in his run for the White House at a time when the entire federal budget was about $16 million. Newspapers of the day questioned where his money came from and how such a sum would influence his decisions. Years later, progressive reformers in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries looked askance at backroom dealmaking, corporate fundraising, strident displays of partisanship and anything that smacked of “special-interest politics.” These legacies cast a shadow over American public opinion today.
Furthermore, in our polls, citizens who said they were “born-again Christians” or described themselves as “conservative”–a fairly high number of individuals, all of whom would likely support many of the stands taken by DeLay–were especially likely to think this way. Is it corrupt when a government official helps an unemployed friend land a job? Is it corrupt when a candidate wins votes by promising to fix potholes on particular streets?
By statistically significant margins, conservative or born-again Americans were more inclined to say “yes.”
In other surveys, we find that people who attend church regularly are more likely to perceive corruption when an elected official seeks the opinion of a corporate executive who has given large campaign contributions in past elections.
The implications for DeLay and other politicians who protest that they haven’t broken the law are therefore pretty clear. “I am not a crook” may not work. Often, Americans are not willing to accept such a claim and move on.
DeLay may accuse his opponents of attempting to criminalize politics, but many Americans are already convinced that what he has done–even if within the letter of the law–is corrupt, plain and simple. This substantial group, at least a third of the American voting population, believes that the everyday professional activities of the majority leader are by their very nature “corrupt.”
So while DeLay might not have broken the law, his protests show he just doesn’t understand that for a lot of voters, perhaps including many of his natural constituents, it isn’t about breaking the law, it’s about playing politics.
———-
David P. Redlawsk is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Iowa. James A. McCann is an associate professor of political science at Purdue University. Their article, “Popular Interpretations of `Corruption’ and Their Partisan Consequences,” detailing the research described in this article will appear later this year in the journal Political Behavior.
