Garrett 3
For example, Roberds (1997, 86) defines political scandal as:
Any issue concerning the candidate that is raised by the media and/or opponent that
questions the propriety, morality, or legality of some behavior, action, personality trait,
either present or past, and as such is known (or could reasonably be known) by voters in
the district and poses the risk of potential divisiveness, disapproval or condemnation by
sizeable numbers of the public.
Roberds (1997, 86-87) goes on to say that this definition includes events such as drug or
alcohol abuse, sexist or racist behavior or speech, financial misconduct and more. Despite the
extremely broad nature of Roberds’ definition, there are two clear components: “for the action to
count as a scandal it must be publicly revealed and it must be of such a nature that it could
reasonably be expected to be controversial,” (Roberds 1997, 87). Furthermore, scandal means
more than mere “spin” of unpopular positions, or even policy reversals; these concerns are
considered “politics, not scandal,” (Roberds 1997, 88).
As Miller and Medvic (2002) note, many scandal definitions include a moral element.
Smith (2002), in a broad examination of scandals throughout government, defines the term as,
“the events following the revelation of possible moral turpitude. This can, but does not
necessarily, include illegalities,” (18). Smith (2002, 19) also argues that scandals include
interactions between three key players: the media, political actors (such as candidates) and
institutions (Congress, parties, etc.).
In continuing the quest for a definition of “scandal,” some authors focus on “official
misconduct,” which necessarily restricts the discussion to incumbents (Whaley 2003; Roberds
1997). Examples include campaign finance violations and abuse of official resources. These
situations frequently involve an institutional response and a legal or quasi-legal element, such as
an ethics committee investigation. Peters and Welch (1978) provide the classic statement on
official corruption, and code various behaviors as “corrupt” but do not differentiate between
scandal and corruption. However, both “corruption” and “misconduct” imply at least some form
Convention