Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-kfj7r Total loading time: 0.259 Render date: 2022-12-03T21:43:56.055Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Assessing Partisan Bias in Federal Public Corruption Prosecutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2009

SANFORD C. GORDON*
Affiliation:
New York University
*
Sanford C. Gordon is Associate Professor, Wilf Family Department of Politics, New York University, 19 W. 4th Street, New York, NY 10012 (sanford.gordon@nyu.edu).

Abstract

The 2007 U.S. Attorney firing scandal raised the specter of political bias in the prosecution of officials under federal corruption laws. Has prosecutorial discretion been employed to persecute enemies or shield allies? To answer this question, I develop a model of the interaction between officials contemplating corruption and a prosecutor deciding whether to pursue cases against them. Biased prosecutors will be willing to file weaker cases against political opponents than against allies. Consequently, the model anticipates that in the presence of partisan bias, sentences of prosecuted opponents will tend to be lower than those of co-partisans. Employing newly collected data on public corruption prosecutions, I find evidence of partisan bias under both Bush (II) and Clinton Justice Departments. However, additional evidence suggests that these results may understate the extent of bias under Bush, while overstating it under Clinton.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abadie, Alberto, and Imbens, Guido. 2006. “Large Sample Properties of Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects.” Econometrica 74 (1): 235–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrams, Norman, and Beale, Sara Sun. 2006. Federal Criminal Law and Its Enforcement. 4th ed.Saint Paul, MN: West Group.Google Scholar
Alt, James E., and Lassen, David Dryer. 2002. “The Political Economy of Institutions and Corruption in American States.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 15 (3): 341–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anechiarico, Frank, and Jacobs, James B.. 1994. “Review: Visions of Corruption Control and the Evolution of American Public Administration.” Public Administration Review 54 (5): 465–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anwar, Shamena, and Fang, Hanming. 2006. “An Alternative Test of Racial Prejudice in Motor Vehicle Searches: Theory and Evidence.” American Economic Review 96 (1): 127–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anzia, Sarah, and Berry, Christopher R.. 2007. “The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson Effect: Congresswomen and the Distribution of Federal Spending.” Working paper 07.16. The University of Chicago Harris School.Google Scholar
Ashworth, Scott, Clinton, Joshua D., Meirowitz, Adam, and Ramsay, Kristopher W.. 2008. “Design, Inference, and the Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.” American Political Science Review 102 (2): 269–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres, Ian. 2001. Pervasive Prejudice? Unconventional Evidence of Race and Gender Discrimination. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ayres, Ian, and Waldfogel, Joel. 1994. “A Market Test for Race Discrimination in Bail Setting.” Stanford Law Review 46 (5): 9871046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Gary. 1957. The Economics of Discrimination. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boylan, Richard. 2005. “What Do Prosecutors Maximize? Evidence from the Careers of U.S. Attorneys.” American Law and Economics Review 7 (2): 379402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boylan, Richard, and Long, Cheryl X.. 2003. “A Survey of State House Reporters' Perception of Public Corruption.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 3 (4): 420–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, David S., Touchton, Michael, and Whitford, Andrew. 2006. “Political Polarization as a Constraint on Government: Evidence from Corruption.” Working paper. University of Colorado at Boulder.Google Scholar
Bryce, James. 1995 [1888]. The American Commonwealth. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Daniel P. 2001. The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Diamond, Alexis, and Sekhon, Jasjeet. 2005. “Genetic Matching for Estimating Causal Effects: A General Multivariate Matching Method for Achieving Balance in Observational Studies.” Working paper. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, James. 1978. Counsel for the United States: U.S. Attorneys in the Political and Legal Systems. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, George. 2007. “Legal Matters with Carol Lam.” Stanford Lawyer 77(Fall): 24–8.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Hill, Jennifer. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Glaeser, Edward L., Kessler, Daniel P., and Piehl, Anne Morrison. 2000. “What Do Prosecutors Maximize? An Analysis of the Federalization of Drug Crimes.” American Law and Economics Review 2 (2): 259–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goel, Rajeev K., and Nelson, Michael A.. 1998. “Corruption and Government Size: A Disaggregated Analysis.” Public Choice 97 (1–2): 107–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Amy, and Eggen, Dan. 2007. “Renzi Aide Called U.S. Attorney to Ask About Probe; Chief of Staff Inquired About Land Deal Investigation; Prosecutor Amount Eight Who Were Fired.” The Washington Post, April 26, p. A04.Google Scholar
Gordon, Sanford C., and Huber, Gregory A.. 2002. “Citizen Oversight and the Electoral Incentives of Criminal Prosecutors.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (2): 334–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Sanford C., and Huber, Gregory A.. 2009. “The Political Economy of Prosecution.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 5: 135–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidenheimer, Arnold J. 1989. “Problems of Comparing American Political Corruption.” In Political Corruption: A Handbook, eds. Heidenheimer, A. J., Johnston, M., and LeVine, V. T.. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 573–85.Google Scholar
Huber, Gregory. 2007. The Craft of Bureaucratic Neutrality. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iglesias, David, with Seay, David. 2008. In Justice: Inside the Scandal That Rocked the Bush Administration. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, King, Gary, and Stuart, Elizabeth A.. 2008. “Misunderstandings Among Experimentalists and Observationalists About Causal Inference.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (Statistics in Society) 171 (2): 481502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowles, John,Persico, Nicola, and Todd, Petra. 2001. “Racial Bias in Motor Vehicle Searches: Theory and Evidence.” Journal of Political Economy 109 (1): 203–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Porta, Rafael, Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio, Shleifer, Andrei, and Vishny, Robert. 1999. “The Quality of Government.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 15 (1): 222–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David E. 2008. The Politics of Presidential Appointments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtblau, Eric. 2007. “Ex-Prosecutor Says Departure Was Pressured.” The New York Times, March 6, p. 1.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin, Seong, Kyoung-Ryung, and Torres, John Charles. 1993. “A Comparative Analysis of the Social Requisites of Democracy.” International Social Science Journal 136 (2): 155–75.Google Scholar
Lipton, Eric. 2007a. “One Prosecutor's Ouster Central to Inquiry.” The New York Times, April 19, p. 24.Google Scholar
Lipton, Eric. 2007b. “Some Ask if U.S. Attorney Dismissals Point to Pattern of Investigating Democrats.” The New York Times, April 30, p. 20.Google Scholar
Mandel, Ruth B., and Kleeman, Katherine E.. 2004. “Political Generation Next: America's Young Elected Leaders.” Eagleton Institute of Politics Report. Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Manski, Charles F. 1995. Identification Problems in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Meier, Kenneth J., and Holbrook, Thomas M.. 1992. “‘I Seen My Opportunities and I Took ‘Em:’ Political Corruption in the United States.” Journal of Politics 54 (1): 135–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Terry M. 1985. “Control and Feedback in Economic Regulation: The Case of the NLRB.” American Political Science Review 79 (4): 1094–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosedale, Mike. 2007. “Not Quite Ready for His Close-Up.” City Pages, March 21. http://citypages.com/2007-03-21/news/not-quite-ready-for-his-close-up (Accessed July 14, 2009).Google Scholar
Nathan, Richard P. 1975. The Plot That Failed: Nixon and the Administrative Presidency. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Nye, J. S. 1967. “Corruption and Political Development: A Cost Benefit Analysis.” American Political Science Review 61 (2): 417–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persson, Torsten, Tabellini, Guido, and Trebbi, Francesco. 2003. “Electoral Rules and Corruption.” Journal of the European Economic Association 1 (4): 958–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richman, Daniel C. 1999. “Federal Criminal Law, Congressional Delegation, and Enforcement Discretion.” UCLA Law Review 46 (February): 757814.Google Scholar
Rose-Ackerman, Susan. 1999. Corruption and Government. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sekhon, Jasjeet. n.d. “Alternative Balance Metrics for Bias Reduction in Matching Methods for Causal Inference.” Working paper. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Seymour, Whitney North Jr., 1975. United States Attorney. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
Shaked, Moshe, and Shanthikumar, J. George. 2007. Stochastic Orders. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shields, Donald C., and Cragan, John F.. 2007. “The Political Profiling of Elected Democratic Officials: When Rhetorical Vision Participation Runs Amok.” E Pluribus Media: A Collaborative Journal for New Media. www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/20070212_political_profiling.html (Accessed July 14, 2009).Google Scholar
Shotts, Kenneth, and Wiseman, Alan. 2008. “Information, Accountability and the Politics of Investigations.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Treisman, Daniel. 2000. “The Causes of Corruption: A Cross-National Study.” Journal of Public Economics 76 (3): 399457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Justice (US DOJ). 2008. “An Investigation into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006.” Washington, DC: USDOJ Office of Professional Responsibility and Office of the Inspector General. www.usdoj.gov/opr/us-att-firings-rpt092308.pdf (Accessed April 17, 2009).Google Scholar
Whitford, Andrew. 2002. “Bureaucratic Discretion, Agency Structure, and Democratic Responsiveness: The Case of the United States Attorneys.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 12 (1): 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
76
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Assessing Partisan Bias in Federal Public Corruption Prosecutions
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Assessing Partisan Bias in Federal Public Corruption Prosecutions
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Assessing Partisan Bias in Federal Public Corruption Prosecutions
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *