Political scandals are a recurrent feature of politics, and they can take many forms. They can be as mundane as extramarital affairs or as serious as a bribery scandal. Regardless of their severity, they can cause voters to punish politicians and sway the outcome of elections. However, what exactly constitutes a political scandal? Is it merely a deficiency in the competence of politicians or something more profound such as corruption? This article uses a meta-analysis of seventy-eight studies to examine the effects of political scandals. It reveals that scandals primarily have negative evaluative consequences for politicians, and five central moderators (candidate characteristics, behaviors, prior attitudes, context, and scandal type) significantly influence scandal effects.
To avoid the ambiguous meaning of “corruption,” this study operationalizes scandals as publicized integrity violations. Such violations signal that politicians do not abide by the behavioral norms they publicly claim to uphold.
Using data on legislative political scandals, I investigate whether and to what extent different media outlets report these scandals. The results show that partisan bias influences how frequently a scandal is reported. Specifically, journalists report more on scandals involving members of the opposing party. Consequently, the more severe a scandal is, the more likely it is to be reported on. Thus, politicians may have incentives to adjust their private behavior in order to avoid being exposed to a scandal. As a consequence, the quality of political discourse may suffer, and the value of public office as a career may decrease.