How Voters Punish and Donors Protect Legislators Embroiled in Scandal

Abstract

Previous studies have largely overlooked three key components of a scandal that could determine how it shapes election outcomes: the extent to which it is covered in the media, the potential that donors respond differently than voters, and the likelihood that the impact of scandals have changed over time. Examining U.S. House scandals between 1980 and 2010, we find that while scandal-tainted politicians receive fewer votes and are less likely to win than otherwise similar legislators not embroiled in scandal, donors actually contribute more money to their campaigns after the scandal’s revelation. Both of these effects, however, are limited to financial and sex scandals that garnered national media attention. Moreover, we find that voters are less punitive and donors are even more supportive in the post-1994 period of nationalized electoral politics.