Transparency Commitment
Every score, label, and factual claim in this report is based on a defined, reproducible methodology. If you believe a score or label is incorrect, consult the formula below and submit a correction through our Corrections Policy. We will update any entry where the evidence warrants it.
Corruption Severity Score (0–100)
The Corruption Severity Score is a composite metric designed to allow meaningful comparison across different types, eras, and scales of corruption. Every profile in this report receives a score from 0 to 100, calculated from seven weighted factors.
The Formula
The total score is the sum of seven component scores:
Severity Score = Legal Outcome (0–25) + Scale (0–20) + Duration (0–15) + Position (0–15) + Categories (0–10) + Systemic Impact (0–10) + Cover-Up (0–5)
| Factor | Max Points | Description | Scoring Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Legal Outcome Severity | 25 | The most serious legal consequence documented |
Convicted = 25 Pleaded Guilty = 23 Indicted = 18 Charged = 15 Settled (civil) = 12 Investigated (formal) = 10 Sanctioned / Censured = 8 Alleged (documented) = 5 Circumstantial = 2 |
| 2. Scale of Corruption | 20 | Dollar value of corruption (inflation-adjusted to 2024 dollars) |
$1B+ = 20 $100M–$999M = 17 $10M–$99M = 14 $1M–$9.9M = 11 $100K–$999K = 8 $10K–$99K = 5 <$10K or non-financial = 2 |
| 3. Duration | 15 | How long the corrupt activity continued |
20+ years = 15 10–19 years = 12 5–9 years = 9 2–4 years = 6 <2 years = 3 Single incident = 1 |
| 4. Position of Power | 15 | The highest office or position held by the subject during the corrupt activity |
President / Vice President = 15 Cabinet Secretary / Supreme Court Justice = 13 Senator / Governor = 12 U.S. Representative / Federal Judge = 10 State Legislature / Mayor (major city) = 8 Federal Agency Head = 7 Local official / State agency = 5 Non-official (lobbyist, contractor) = 3 |
| 5. Number of Corruption Categories | 10 | How many distinct types of corruption are documented (bribery, fraud, obstruction, etc.) |
5+ categories = 10 4 categories = 8 3 categories = 6 2 categories = 4 1 category = 2 |
| 6. Systemic Impact | 10 | Did the corruption affect broader systems, institutions, or large numbers of people? |
National systemic impact (changed laws, affected millions) = 10 Regional / statewide impact = 7 Institutional impact (corrupted an agency or branch) = 5 Local / limited impact = 3 Individual impact only = 1 |
| 7. Cover-Up / Obstruction | 5 | Did the subject actively obstruct investigation or cover up the corruption? |
Documented obstruction of justice = 5 Evidence destruction / witness tampering = 4 Misleading investigators = 3 Passive concealment = 2 No documented cover-up = 0 |
Score Interpretation
0–25
Low Severity
26–50
Medium Severity
51–75
High Severity
76–100
Extreme Severity
Worked Example 1: William "Boss" Tweed
William M. "Boss" Tweed
Head of Tammany Hall; New York State Senator; NYC Commissioner of Public Works
92
| Factor | Value | Score | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal Outcome | Convicted | 25 | Convicted in 1873 of forgery and larceny. Died in prison, 1878. |
| Scale | $1B+ (adjusted) | 20 | Estimated $30–$200 million stolen (1860s dollars). At minimum $1 billion in 2024 dollars using CPI-U. |
| Duration | ~15 years | 12 | Active corruption from roughly 1858–1871. |
| Position | State Senator / City Commissioner | 8 | State-level office. De facto power was greater (controlled city and state), but scoring is based on formal position. |
| Categories | 5+ (fraud, embezzlement, bribery, extortion, election fraud) | 10 | Extensive documented categories of corruption. |
| Systemic Impact | National | 10 | Led to major municipal reform movements. Changed how American cities are governed. |
| Cover-Up | Extensive obstruction | 5 | Maintained parallel accounting books. Intimidated witnesses. Attempted to bribe New York Times ($5 million) to stop reporting. |
| TOTAL | 90 | Rounded to 92 with editorial adjustment for historical magnitude (+2 points). | |
Editorial Adjustment Policy
In rare cases where the formula produces a score that does not adequately capture the historical significance of the corruption, an editorial adjustment of up to +/- 3 points may be applied. Any such adjustment is disclosed in the scoring table with a rationale. The goal is to prevent mathematical artifacts from distorting rankings. Adjustments are reviewed quarterly.
Worked Example 2: The Keating Five
The Keating Five
Five U.S. Senators (Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, McCain, Riegle)
58
| Factor | Value | Score | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal Outcome | Investigated / Sanctioned | 8 | Senate Ethics Committee investigation. Cranston received a formal reprimand. No criminal charges. Score based on most severe outcome across the group. |
| Scale | $1B+ (indirect) | 17 | Their intervention on behalf of Charles Keating contributed to the $3.4 billion failure of Lincoln Savings, which cost taxpayers $3.4 billion. Score reduced from 20 because the senators did not directly steal the money. |
| Duration | ~3 years (1987–1989) | 6 | Active intervention on Keating's behalf from approximately 1987 to 1989. |
| Position | U.S. Senator (x5) | 12 | Five sitting U.S. Senators. |
| Categories | 2 (improper influence, conflict of interest) | 4 | Accepted campaign contributions, intervened with regulators. Not charged with bribery or fraud. |
| Systemic Impact | National | 7 | Contributed to the S&L crisis. Led to campaign finance reform discussions. Regional rather than fully national systemic impact scored. |
| Cover-Up | Passive concealment | 2 | Some senators initially downplayed the extent of their contacts with regulators, but no documented obstruction. |
| TOTAL | 56 | Rounded to 58 with editorial adjustment (+2 points for involvement of five sitting senators simultaneously). | |
Legal Status Labels
Every profile carries one or more legal status labels. These labels reflect documented legal outcomes, not editorial judgment. The definitions and source requirements are as follows:
| Label | Definition | Source Requirements |
|---|---|---|
| Convicted | Found guilty at trial by a jury or judge, and conviction has not been overturned on appeal. | Court record or official DOJ press release confirming conviction. |
| Pleaded Guilty | Entered a guilty plea, with or without a plea agreement. | Court record or official DOJ press release confirming plea. |
| Indicted | A grand jury has returned an indictment, or a criminal information has been filed. Case remains pending or resulted in acquittal. | Court docket or official announcement of indictment. |
| Charged | Criminal charges have been filed but no indictment by grand jury (misdemeanor or information). | Court docket or official law enforcement announcement. |
| Settled | Subject of a civil enforcement action that was resolved through a settlement, consent decree, or agreement, typically without admitting or denying wrongdoing. | Settlement agreement, consent decree, or regulatory order. |
| Investigated | Subject of a formal investigation by law enforcement, a congressional committee, an Inspector General, or a regulatory agency. No charges resulted, or the investigation remains ongoing. | Official confirmation of the investigation from the investigating body (e.g., IG report, congressional record, DOJ statement). |
| Sanctioned | Subject of formal disciplinary action by a professional body, regulatory agency, or ethics commission (e.g., bar sanctions, SEC sanctions, ethics fines). | Official record of the sanctioning action. |
| Censured | Formally censured, reprimanded, or admonished by a legislative body (Congress, state legislature, city council). | Official legislative record (e.g., Congressional Record, state journal). |
| Impeached | Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives or equivalent state body. (Note: impeachment is a charge, not a conviction. Removal requires Senate conviction.) | Official congressional or legislative record. |
| Alleged | Credible allegations from multiple independent sources, but no formal charges, investigation findings, or sanctions. This label requires the highest editorial scrutiny. | Minimum two independent credible sources (major news organizations, sworn testimony, or official records). The word "alleged" must appear prominently in the profile text. |
| Circumstantial | Documented facts that suggest corruption but do not rise to the level of formal allegations. Used sparingly for historical figures where direct evidence is fragmentary. | Minimum two academic or historical sources. The word "circumstantial" must appear prominently in the profile text. This label cannot be used for living subjects. |
Important: Labels Reflect Legal Outcomes, Not Guilt
A label of "Investigated" means an investigation occurred — it does not imply guilt. A label of "Alleged" means credible allegations exist — it does not mean the allegations are true. We use the strongest legal status that is documentable. If a person was both investigated and later convicted, only the "Convicted" label appears.
Citation Standards
Source Hierarchy
Sources are prioritized in the following order. Higher-ranked sources are preferred; lower-ranked sources are used only when higher-ranked sources are unavailable.
- Court records: Indictments, plea agreements, trial transcripts, judicial opinions, sentencing memoranda.
- Government reports: Inspector General reports, congressional committee reports, GAO reports, SEC enforcement actions, DOJ press releases.
- Official data: Sentencing Commission data, FEC filings, lobbying disclosure filings, financial disclosures.
- Academic studies: Peer-reviewed research published in recognized journals.
- Major investigative journalism: Reporting by established news organizations with editorial standards (New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, ProPublica, Reuters, AP, etc.).
- Books and monographs: Published by recognized academic or trade presses, authored by credentialed researchers or journalists.
- Secondary journalism: Reporting by regional or specialized news outlets, used to supplement but not replace higher-ranked sources.
Minimum Source Requirements
- Every factual claim must be supported by at least one source from levels 1–5 above.
- Every legal status label must be supported by at least one source from levels 1–3 above.
- Every "Alleged" label requires at minimum two independent sources (sources that did not rely on each other for the underlying information).
- Dollar figures must cite a primary or government source. Estimates from journalism sources are labeled as estimates.
- Biographical facts (dates of office, positions held) are sourced from official government records when available.
How Inflation Adjustments Are Calculated
All dollar figures in this report are presented in their nominal (original-year) amounts with an inflation-adjusted figure in parentheses or in the adjusted format. Adjustments are calculated using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), with the base year set to 2024.
Method
The adjustment formula is:
Adjusted Amount = Nominal Amount × (CPI-U 2024 / CPI-U Original Year)
For example, the $200 million estimated theft by the Tweed Ring in 1871:
- CPI-U 1871 (estimated): approximately 12.4
- CPI-U 2024: approximately 314.2
- Adjustment factor: 314.2 / 12.4 = 25.3
- Adjusted amount: $200,000,000 × 25.3 = approximately $5.06 billion in 2024 dollars
For years before 1913 (when the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking CPI), we use the historical CPI estimates compiled by Samuel H. Williamson of MeasuringWorth.com, which are widely used in academic economic history and are based on consumer price data from multiple historical sources.
Note on Pre-1913 Adjustments
Inflation adjustments for pre-1913 figures are inherently approximate. The composition of the consumer basket has changed fundamentally since the 19th century. We present these figures as reasonable approximations, not precise calculations. Where the original dollar amount is disputed, we present the range of scholarly estimates.
Corrections and Rebuttal Policy
How Corrections Work
- Submit a correction via the Corrections page. Include the specific claim you believe is incorrect and the source that supports the correction.
- Review: All corrections are reviewed within 14 business days. We verify the submitted source against our source hierarchy.
- Decision: If the correction is warranted, the entry is updated and the correction is logged in the Corrections Log with the date, the original claim, the corrected claim, and the source.
- Disagreements: If we decline to make a correction, we will notify the submitter with our reasoning. The submitter may appeal once with additional evidence.
Right of Response
Living individuals profiled in this report have a right of response. If a living subject or their legal representative contacts us with a factual rebuttal, we will:
- Review the rebuttal against our source hierarchy.
- If the rebuttal is supported by credible evidence, update the entry and note the subject's response.
- If the rebuttal is not supported by evidence that meets our source standards, we may still publish a summary of the subject's position in a "Response" section appended to the profile, clearly labeled as the subject's statement rather than verified fact.
Update Schedule
- Scores and labels: Reviewed quarterly. Updated when legal status changes (e.g., conviction overturned, new charges filed).
- Rankings: Updated quarterly using the most recent available DOJ, FEC, and disclosure data.
- Narrative content: Updated as significant new information becomes available (e.g., new investigations, trial outcomes, major journalism).
- Corrections: Processed within 14 business days of receipt. Published immediately upon approval.
Methodology References
- [1] Gov Data U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)." bls.gov/cpi.
- [2] Academic Williamson, Samuel H. "Seven Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a U.S. Dollar Amount, 1774 to Present." MeasuringWorth.com (2024).
- [3] Gov Data U.S. Department of Justice, Public Integrity Section Annual Reports, 1976–2022.
- [4] Academic Glaeser, Edward L. and Raven E. Saks. "Corruption in America." Journal of Public Economics 90, nos. 6–7 (2006): 1053–1072.
- [5] Academic Alt, James E. and David Dreyer Lassen. "Enforcement and Public Corruption: Evidence from the American States." Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 30, no. 2 (2014): 306–338.