thesis statement on power and corruption

Dacher Keltner Dacher Keltner

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/the-science-behind-why-power-corrupts-and-what-can-be-done-to-mitigate-it

The science behind why power corrupts and what can be done to mitigate it

Editor’s Note:  For a recent Making Sen$e segment , economics correspondent Paul Solman spoke with Dacher Keltner, a professor of psychology at University of California, Berkeley known for his research on power. His new book is “The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence.” In a previous post, Keltner and Paul discussed how people gain power and esteem in the eyes of their peers. Today, Keltner explains the paradox part — why once we gain power, we lose the very skills that got us there and take more than our fair share. You can watch the full report below.

— Kristen Doerer, Making Sen$e Editor

Dacher Keltner: Power, new studies in economics have shown, comes from sharing resources and bringing out the welfare of others. Power comes from a kind of humble language. There are actually new studies showing if you are humble and respectful, people respect you more. So that’s the rise to power. Here’s the problem: When we feel powerful, we have these surges of dopamine going through our brain. We feel like we could accomplish just about anything. That’s where the power paradox begins, which is that very sense of ourselves when feeling powerful leads to our demise, leads to the abuse of power.

Paul Solman: That’s Paul Piff’s experiment that I participated in playing Monopoly . I was simply designated the more powerful person, and I began to behave in relatively anti-social ways.

Dacher Keltner: You’re a special case, Paul…

Paul Solman:   But it was true. He was calling me on it, saying, “Look how you’re talking.” I had a sense of that I was going to win the game and that I was stronger than he, all because I got $200 when I passed “Go” and he got $100. It absolutely affected my mood.

Dacher Keltner: This is what’s striking when you bring people into the lab, and you randomly give them power. You say, “You’re in charge,” or in that case with the monopoly game, “You have more money,” or perhaps you get to evaluate other people and allocate rewards. Just the random assignment of power, and all kinds of mischief ensues, and people will become impulsive. They eat more resources than is their fair share. They take more money. People become more unethical. They think unethical behavior is okay if they engage in it. People are more likely to stereotype. They’re more likely to stop attending to other people carefully. It’s just this paradoxical quality of power, which is the good in human nature gets us power, and then power leads to the bad in human nature.

Paul Solman: So power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

READ MORE: Why Those Who Feel They Have Less Give More

Dacher Keltner: Well, I think Lord Acton was on to something which is that there are dozens of studies showing who’s more likely to speak rudely within an organization? High power people or low power people? High power people. Who’s more likely to have sexual affairs? High power people or low power people? High power people. Who’s more likely to take more resources that aren’t theirs? High power people. You go down the list. It kind of looks like an absolute story.

Paul Solman: What kinds of studies show that people with more power take a lion’s share of the resources?

Dacher Keltner: That’s where I really began my studies of power, Paul. People have this deep sense of fairness. They really have a preference if people have roughly the same amount. And if you look out in the world, you can’t help but notice that people with power seem to be enjoying more resources right? Wealthy nations eat more of the world’s protein. A lot of people are really concerned about executive compensation. Why should this person make 10 million bucks a year and I make 12 bucks an hour?

And I was thinking about how we demonstrate this in the lab, and so we did this crazy study that gained a lot of traction and has come to be known as the “Cookie Monster Study.” We bring three people to the lab, and we randomly assign one person to the role of leader. We say you’re in charge, and then over the course of the experiment, these three students have to write policies for the university. They bring together facts, they write policies, they submit them, and we gather these written products. Half-way into the experiment, we bring a plate of five delicious chocolate chip cookies. We put them down and that’s actually where the experiment really begins. So everybody takes a cookie. They eat very happily and are grateful for it. All groups leave one cookie on the plate because they don’t like to take that last cookie, because you don’t want to be the person who takes the last piece of food. So the key question is who takes that fourth cookie, and indeed, it’s our person in the position of power who reaches out and grabs the cookie and says that’s mine.

Paul Solman: Is it every time that it’s the leader?

Dacher Keltner: Most of the time. Two-thirds of the time it’s our person in the position of power who unconsciously feels entitled to take more of the sweets. One of my grad student came to me and said, “You know, I’m convinced that they’re eating differently.” So we spent several months coding the videotapes of people eating, and we found our person in power is more likely to eat with their mouths open, limps smacking, crumbs falling down on their sweaters. And that set in motion this whole exploration. And it’s so fundamental. Humans are this balance of impulse and our ego, our sense of morality and our sense of what other people think of us, and power shifts this balance. Suddenly when I feel powerful, I can eat the cookies however I want to. I can swear at my colleagues. I can touch people in a way that feels good to me, but not necessarily worry about how it feels to them. That really set in motion this idea that power leads people to feel entitled to take more resources.

READ MORE: Why the secret to gaining power is different today

Paul Solman:   Are there other examples?

Dacher Keltner: One really interesting area of research is work in organizations. We know you create a better team if as a leader you speak in a respectful way. You compliment. You bring out the best, you praise people. You ask good questions. And so researchers have been asking who is more likely to swear in a rude fashion at their work colleagues. And three out of the four acts of rudeness come from people in positions of power in organizations in different sectors. If you’re going to be told you’re an idiot, it’s going to probably come from people in positions of power.

Here’s one of my favorites. I could not believe this finding. Investigators were interested in who’s more likely to shoplift. Shoplifting costs America over $10 billion a year. So the question is who is likely to walk into the store and pocket something that they don’t pay for, and indeed, it is high power, wealthier people who are more likely to shoplift. There are famous car studies with Paul Piff that look at who’s more likely to blaze through a pedestrian zone on the road and think that their time is more important than the safety of the pedestrian? It’s people driving more high power, wealthier cars.

Everywhere you turn, you see this finding that power makes us feel entitled to more.

Watch the viral Making Sen$e report on Paul Piff’s famous car study above.

Paul Solman: So what do you do about it?

Dacher Keltner: I think that that’s the great question of societies. Studies are finding — and it’s very intuitive — that if you make people feel accountable, and you say, “Paul, a committee is evaluating how you allocate these resources,” and you’re in a position of power and now allocate the resources, you become more ethical in how you allocate resources.

Paul Solman:   If I think somebody’s watching.

READ MORE: How do humans gain power? By sharing it

Dacher Keltner: Yeah, and the sense of accountability or the sense of being scrutinized is so powerful. All you have to do in studies now is actually place a geometric arrangement of dots, with two dots at the top and the little dot at the bottom, that kind of resembles the human face. If I am have sense of being watched, I become less greedy and less entitled in taking resources in positions of power. Accountability is really important.

Paul Solman: So if you’re the designated leader in some experiment and you’re beginning to lord it over the others, and there’s a picture that has four dots kind of in the array of a face in the room, you’re less likely to do so?

Dacher Keltner: Yes. Let’s say that I’m in an experiment and I have an opportunity to use resources to my benefit to the cost of other people. If I’m simply aware that other people are going to know of my actions, I act in a much more ethical fashion. I avoid the abuses of power. There are studies that show if I have a chance to take resources, and there’s this geometric arrangement of dots that looks like a human face, I take fewer of the resources for myself. I leave more for the public good. It’s very powerful.

There’s a concern right now that the wealthiest in our society are beyond scrutiny. No one even knows who they are, these people making $300 million a year. We don’t know where they live. We don’t know how their wealth generates, and that basic social condition spells trouble, and it spells a greater likelihood for the abuse of power.

As we think about inequality in the United States, one of the really interesting developments is the efforts that have sprung up to scrutinize the people with the most power. The journalist Michael Massing just wrote this nice essay about why there should be journalism about the one percent and what they’re really doing so that we as a country know what they’re doing with the resources and what we can make of it.

Paul Solman: So your belief is that to the extent that there’s journalism about the top 1 percent and how they behave, it will modify their behavior?

Dacher Keltner: Yes. This really interesting new literature shows that when I’m aware of what other people think of me, when I’m aware of my reputation, I cooperate more in economic gains. I am more likely to sign up for environmentally efficient services. I am more likely to pay taxes. Just this sense that my actions are being scrutinized and my reputation is at stake produces better behavior for the public good or the greater good. And I think that one of the ironies is that if we build up more awareness of the most powerful and the sense that their reputations are at stake, they’ll actually engage in more noble actions. They’ll be more giving to society. They’ll feel better about it. There’s a rich literature behind that, and so there are benefits for them as well.

READ MORE: Money can buy happiness, especially when you invest it in others

Dacher Keltner, Ph.D., is the founding director of the Greater Good Science Center and a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of "The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence" and "Born to Be Good" and a co-editor of "The Compassionate Instinct."

Support Provided By: Learn more

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

Why Power Corrupts

New research digs deeper into the social science behind why power brings out the best in some people and the worst in others

Christopher Shea

“Power tends to corrupt,” said Lord Acton, the 19th-century British historian. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” His maxim has been vividly illustrated in psychological studies, notably the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment, which was halted when one group of students arbitrarily assigned to serve as “prison guards” over another group began to abuse their wards.

But new scholarship is bringing fresh subtlety to psychologists’ understanding of when power leads people to take ethical shortcuts—and when it doesn’t. Indeed, for some people, power seems to bring out their best. After all, good people do win elective office, says Katherine A. DeCelles, a professor of management at the University of Toronto, and no few business executives want to do good while doing well. “When you give good people power,” DeCelles says she wondered, are they more able than others “to enact that moral identity, to do what’s right?”

In a study recently published in the Journal of Applied Psychology , DeCelles and her co-authors found that the answer is yes. People’s sense of “moral identity”—the degree to which they thought it was important to their sense of self to be “caring,” “compassionate,” “fair,” “generous” and so on—shaped their responses to feelings of power.

DeCelles and her colleagues developed moral identity scores for two groups, 173 working adults and 102 undergraduates, by asking the participants to rate how important those ethically related attributes were to them. The researchers had some participants write an essay recalling an incident in which they felt powerful, while others wrote about an ordinary day. Then the participants took part in lab experiments to probe how they balanced self-interest against the common good.

The undergraduates were told they shared a pool of 500 points with other people, and they could take between zero and ten points for themselves. The more points they took, the better their odds of winning a $100 lottery. But if they took too many—there was no way of knowing what that tipping point was—the pot would empty and the lottery would be called off.

The participants who had just written about an ordinary day each took roughly 6.5 points, regardless of their moral-identity score. But among those who had been primed to think of themselves as powerful, the people with low moral-identity scores grabbed 7.5 points—and those with high moral-identity scores took only about 5.5.

In surveys, the last group showed a greater understanding of how their actions would affect other people, which is the crucial mechanism, DeCelles says. Power led them to take a broader, more communally centered perspective.

The experiment involving the adults found a similar relationship between moral identity, ethical behavior and innate aggressiveness. Assertive people who scored low on the moral-identity scale were more likely to say they’d cheated their employer in the past week than more passive types with similar moral-identity scores. But among those with high moral-identity scores, the assertive people were less likely to have cheated.

In sum, the study found, power doesn’t corrupt; it heightens pre-existing ethical tendencies. Which brings to mind another maxim, from Abraham Lincoln: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

2013 Theses Doctoral

How Power and Powerlessness Corrupt

Yap, Andy Jiexiong

This dissertation examines how and when, both powerfulness and powerlessness, can each lead to corrupt behavior. The first half of this dissertation (Chapters 2 to 5) focuses on the link between power and corrupt behavior. Building on previous work that expansive posture induces a state of power, four studies tested whether expansive posture incidentally imposed by our environment lead to increases in dishonest behavior. Chapters 2 to 4 present three experiments, which found that powerful individuals were more likely to steal money, cheat on a test, and commit traffic violations in a driving simulation. Results suggested that participants' self-reported sense of power mediated the link between postural expansiveness and dishonesty. In an observational field study, Chapter 5 revealed that automobiles with more expansive driver's seats were more likely to be illegally parked on New York City streets. The second part of the dissertation examines if powerlessness can lead to corrupt behavior. Chapters 6 to 10 present a new theoretical model that comprehensively integrates theories on power and regulatory focus. This model reveals that both powerfulness and powerlessness can each lead to corrupt behavior, but through different routes. Three experiments in Chapters 7 to 9 found that prevention-powerlessness and promotion-powerfulness produce more corrupt behavior than promotion-powerlessness and prevention-powerfulness, as evident in individuals' tendency to exploit others, aggression, and dishonest behavior. I also found evidence for the affective manifestations that accompany these effects. Indeed, a meta-analysis on the data suggests that prevention-powerlessness and promotion-powerfulness significantly produced more corrupt behavior than prevention-powerfulness and promotion-powerlessness. These findings have important theoretical implications for power and regulatory focus, and explicate how powerlessness can lead to taking action and even corruption.

• Organizational behavior
• Social psychology

More About This Work

• DOI Copy DOI to clipboard

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Sage Choice

Power Corrupts, but Control Does Not: What Stands Behind the Effects of Holding High Positions

Aleksandra cislak.

1 University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw, Poland

2 Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland

Aleksandra Cichocka

3 University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

Adrian Dominik Wojcik

Natalia frankowska, associated data.

People seek high positions not to gain influence over others but to satisfy their need for personal control. Personal control tends to have positive interpersonal consequences. If this is the case, does power indeed corrupt? We argue that holding a high position is associated both with perceptions of power (influence over others) and personal control (influence over one’s life). Three studies showed that these two aspects might have opposite consequences: Power over others positively predicted aggressiveness (Study 1, N = 793) and exploitativeness (Study 2, N = 445), whereas personal control predicted these outcomes negatively. In Study 3 ( N = 557), conducted among employees at various organizational positions, the effects of holding a high position on exploitativeness and aggressiveness were differentially mediated by power over others and personal control. We discuss these findings in light of contradicting evidence on the corruptive effects of power.

The observation that “power tends to corrupt” is no longer newsworthy. Vast empirical literature in the field of social psychology speaks to the antisocial effects of power. Power undermines social relations by reducing the propensity to take the perspective of others ( Galinsky, Magee, Inesi, & Gruenfeld, 2006 ), compassion ( van Kleef et al., 2008 ), and the willingness to maintain close relationships ( Kipnis, 1972 ). Powerful people are more cynical ( Inesi, Gruenfeld, & Galinsky, 2012 ) and tend to undervalue ( Georgesen & Harris, 1998 ) and objectify others ( Cislak, 2013 ; Gruenfeld, Inesi, Magee, & Galinsky, 2008 ). Yet, power can also be seen from a more positive perspective—as “the glue that coordinates social life and moves shared goals forward” ( Guinote & Vescio, 2010 , p. 3). Groups follow leaders for coordinative purposes, providing the structure and organization of group efforts ( Van, Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008 ). In fact, power was demonstrated to enhance goal attainment, reduce procrastination ( Guinote, 2007 ), enhance creativity, and reduce conformity ( Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson, & Liljenquist, 2008 ).

What psychological processes stand behind the corruptive, versus ennobling, effects of holding high positions? We believe that the key to this question lies in the understanding of different aspects of holding such positions. A high position is associated with two spheres of control. The first is control over others—more traditionally associated with the concept of power ( Lammers, Stoker, Rink, & Galinsky, 2016 ). The second is the ability to influence the course of one’s own life, which is usually referred to as personal control ( Kay, Whitson, Gaucher, & Galinsky, 2009 ). In his famous observation on the corruptive effects of power, Lord Acton (1887/ 1906 ) attributed the antisocial effects of high positions to the influence over others exercised by the powerholders. But Kipnis (1972) , inspired by Lord Acton’s theorizing to pioneer social psychological research into the corruptive effects of power, suggested that power brings about negative effects exactly because of the internal locus of control of the powerful. Yet, recent psychological literature suggests that these two aspects of holding high positions should have different outcomes: Whereas power corrupts, personal control has been linked to beneficial outcomes both for individuals and their social environment (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2000 ; Weinstein & Ryan, 2010 ). In this work, we examine which of these two intertwined aspects of holding high positions stands behind the only too frequently observed corruptive effects. To this end, we disentangle the relationships between holding high positions, power over others, personal control, and antisocial tendencies.

The Antisocial Effects of Power

The idea of a “corruptive power” was introduced by Hobbes (1651/ 2002 ), who claimed that modern societies emerged to limit the otherwise exploitative and corruptive effects of unconstrained power. It was perhaps most famously formulated in the 19th century by John Emerich Edward Dalberg–Acton in a correspondence with Archbishop Creighton regarding the First Vatican Council’s introduction of the dogma of infallibility. Whereas Archbishop Creighton suggested that people in high positions should be treated with less moral rigor, Lord Acton (1887/ 1906 ) observed,

Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. (p. 364)

Lord Acton suggested that not only merely exercising authority but also gaining influence over others stands behind the corruptive effects of holding high positions. Inspired by his idea—that “power corrupts”—classic psychological studies on the metamorphic effects of power delivered the first systematic evidence that, indeed, powerful people distance themselves from others, objectify them, and devalue their performance ( Kipnis, 1972 ; Kipnis, Castell, Gergen, & Mauch, 1976 ).

Extensive contemporary empirical research strongly confirms this early evidence. Powerholders are egocentric ( Galinsky et al., 2006 ), not compassionate ( van Kleef et al., 2008 ), overconfident ( Fast, Sivanathan, Mayer, & Galinsky, 2012 ), unrealistically self-assured, and prone to ignore others ( See, Morrison, Rothman, & Soll, 2011 ). They tend to cheat ( Lammers, Stapel, & Galinsky, 2010 ), even on their life partners ( Lammers, Stoker, Jordan, Pollmann, & Stapel, 2011 ). Powerful people stereotype others ( Goodwin, Gubin, Fiske, & Yzerbyt, 2000 ), treat others instrumentally ( Gruenfeld et al., 2008 ), and undervalue the performance of their subordinates ( Georgesen & Harris, 1998 ). They tend also to harm others by various forms of aggression ( Zimbardo, 1973 ) in family ( Howard, Blumstein, & Schwartz, 1986 ), peer ( Faris & Felmlee, 2011 ), and workplace contexts ( C. Anderson & Brion, 2014 ; Workplace Bullying Institute, 2014 ). In fact, a majority of workplace bullying comes from those who occupy a higher rank in the organizational hierarchy than their victims ( Workplace Bullying Institute, 2014 ). Different operationalizations of high positions and various methods brought converging results. For example, social class ( Piff, Kraus, Côté, Cheng, & Keltner, 2010 ) and status ( Guinote, Cotzia, Sandhu, & Siwa, 2015 ) were found to be negatively related to prosociality.

Still, several classic theories and programs of empirical research speak to the contrary. Early on, Rogow and Lasswell (1963) suggested that power leads neither to corruption nor to ennoblement. In the field of social psychology, Cartwright and Zander (1968) even suggested that power has positive consequences, leading to empathy rather than exploitation. In a similar vein, C. Anderson, John, and Keltner (2012) showed that “individuals with an extremely high personal sense of power did not have more anti-social tendencies” (p. 336). In their studies, a high personal sense of power was not associated with the tendency to exploit. In fact, it was negatively related to Machiavellianism, and positively related to generosity and the belief in one’s duty to care for the weak. Furthermore, the results of research using big data sets and representative samples revealed positive effects of higher social class on prosocial behavior, such as helping, volunteering, donating, and being trustworthy and trusting in economic games ( Korndörfer, Egloff, & Schmukle, 2015 ).

One possible explanation for the inconsistent results regarding high positions and antisocial tendencies was suggested by Overbeck and Park (2001) and further developed by Lammers, Stoker, and Stapel (2009) . These authors postulated that there are different types of power, which emphasize either interdependence or independence. These in turn affect the tendency to stereotype others. When interdependence is salient, the tendency to stereotype others is diminished (although this effect may reflect a decrease in reliance on schematic information, rather than a positive interpersonal attitude). Another approach was proposed by Fast and Chen (2009) , who demonstrated that antisocial effects of power (such as defensive aggressiveness) weaken after a self-boost. Although these authors highlighted factors moderating the effects of power, we propose that the diverging effects of power may stem from two concurrent, yet opposing, psychological processes associated with climbing the social ladder: gaining both personal control and power over others.

Two Core Aspects of Holding High Positions

Although the concept of power is claimed to be “the fundamental concept in social science, in the same sense in which energy is the fundamental concept in physics” ( Russell, 1938, p.10 ), it lacks theoretical clarity and has been occasionally described as “slippery” ( Overbeck, Tiedens, & Brion, 2006 ). Social power has been defined as the potential for social influence ( French & Raven, 1959 ; Raven, 2008 ), the degree of asymmetry of control over resources or other people ( Georgesen & Harris, 1998 ), empowerment with greater autonomy and discretion ( Spreitzer, 1995 ), or as the opposite of dependence ( Magee, Galinsky, & Gruenfeld, 2007 ). Recently, Lammers et al. (2016) carried out an extensive review of the definitions of power prevalent in the field of social psychology, and found that these definitions often mask the multidimensionality of power, leading to a lack of conceptual clarity. According to these authors, power covers two aspects of control: control over others (which they consider influence) and independence of others (which they consider autonomy). In line with their theorizing, Lammers and colleagues (2016) found that people do not seek high positions to gain influence over others. They do so to satisfy their need for autonomy and to gain control of their own lives. In fact, power can satisfy the personal control motive ( Inesi, Botti, Dubois, Rucker, & Galinsky, 2011 ). Although sometimes used interchangeably, or even to define one another ( Fiske, 1993 ), power over others and control should not be equated.

The need for personal control is considered to be one of three basic innate psychological motives ( Ryan & Deci, 2000 ; Whitson & Galinsky, 2008 ). Contrary to the suggestion of Kipnis (1972) , vast empirical evidence on personal control and autonomy shows their positive consequences. Research conducted in the context of self-determination theory ( Deci & Ryan, 1985 ) demonstrates that having personal control helps maintain an intrinsic motivation for action, enhances performance, and leads to greater overall well-being ( Deci & Ryan, 2000 ; Ryan & Deci, 2000 ). Moreover, personal control appears to have desirable effects on interpersonal relations. For example, personal autonomy is linked to prosociality, including the willingness to help others by volunteering or donating money to charities ( Gagné, 2003 ; Weinstein & Ryan, 2010 ). Increased personal control also leads to more secure and constructive identification with significant social groups ( Cichocka, 2016 ; Cichocka et al., in press ). Others have argued that personal control mediates some effects of power. For example, Fast, Gruenfeld, Sivanathan, and Galinsky (2009) showed that high positions increased the illusion of personal control, which was further associated with optimism, higher self-esteem, and action orientation. As these authors themselves suggested, feelings of control may result in overconfidence, but they are also “adaptive and, in some cases, can enhance performance” ( Fast et al., 2009 , p. 507).

Thus, it seems that it is power over others, rather than personal control, that is the likely mechanism behind the antisocial effects of power. In fact, experimental studies often use manipulations, which explicitly emphasize the influence aspect of power ( Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003 ). Furthermore, recent research suggests that personal control may have different psychological concomitants from those of power over others. Personal control was demonstrated to have opposite effects to power, both on approach tendencies ( Greenaway et al., 2015 ) and stereotyping ( Fritsche et al., 2013 ). Whereas high power enhances both the behavioral approach system and the tendency to stereotype others ( Goodwin et al., 2000 ; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003 ), it was low personal control that led to similar effects. Importantly, a personal sense of power, found to be positively related to prosociality, was also positively related to an internal locus of control ( C. Anderson et al., 2012 ).

Current Research

This research examines whether perceived personal control and power over others have opposite effects on antisocial tendencies. We predicted that power over others would be positively associated with antisocial tendencies, but personal control would be negatively associated with antisocial tendencies. Rather than expecting personal control to mediate the effect of power on antisocial tendencies (e.g., Fast et al., 2009 ; Guinote, 2007 ; Kipnis, 1972 ), we predicted a suppression effect (e.g., MacKinnon, Krull, & Lockwood, 2000 ; Paulhus, Robins, Trzesniewski, & Tracy, 2004 ), in which the opposing effects of power over others and personal control would become more pronounced when we accounted for their shared variance.

In Study 1 ( N = 793), we examined whether power over others and personal control, though positively related, predicted self-reported verbal aggression in opposite directions. We aimed to conceptually replicate previously observed patterns of results by showing that power over others is associated with higher levels of self-reported verbal aggression (cf. Faris & Felmlee, 2011 ; Workplace Bullying Institute, 2014 ). Crucially, we extended previous findings by verifying a potentially mitigating effect of personal control on aggression. In Study 2 ( N = 445), we tested our predictions using interpersonal exploitativeness as a different operationalization of antisocial tendencies. Both in Studies 1 and 2, we tested mutual suppression effects of power over others and personal control. In Study 3, conducted among 557 employees at lower ( N = 194), medium ( N = 201), and higher ( N = 162) levels within an organizational hierarchy, we examined the effects of power over others and personal control on both self-reported aggression and exploitativeness. In addition, we tested the estimated indirect effects of position on self-reported aggression and exploitativeness via perceived power over others and perceived personal control.

In all studies, we aimed to include at least around 460 participants, to allow us to detect even small indirect (suppressing or mediating) effects with bias-corrected bootstrapping 1 (assuming a power of .80; Fritz & MacKinnon, 2007 ). Because using regression analyses may produce a Type I error, especially at moderate levels of reliability and with larger samples ( Westfall & Yarkoni, 2016 ), we used structural equation modeling to examine the indirect effects. These analyses were conducted in MPlus 8.00 ( Muthén & Muthén, 2017 ), with the use of the maximum-likelihood estimation. Because gender is correlated with a wide array of antisocial tendencies (such as verbal aggression; C. A. Anderson & Bushman, 2002 ; Buss & Perry, 1992 ; Gerevich, Bácskai, & Czobor, 2007 ), in all studies, we examined the models with gender as a covariate. Unless noted otherwise, the pattern of results remained the same without the inclusion of gender in the models (see the supplementary material for details ).

Participants and procedure

Study 1 was part of a larger survey conducted in Poland by the Centre of Research on Prejudice among 926 adults. 2 The survey included measures of power over others, personal control, and verbal aggression. Our final sample consisted of 793 participants, who reported being Polish (or mixed Polish) and responded to the items measuring our three focal variables. There were 625 women (coded as 1) and 153 men (coded as 2), one participant declared other gender and 14 declined to answer (all coded as missing), aged between 17 and 62 years ( M = 25.02 years, SD = 5.04 years).

Power over others was measured with a single item. Participants were asked to report on a 7-point scale how much power over others they felt they had (from 0 = no power to 6 = a lot of power ).

Personal control was measured with the three items (e.g., –3 = “I feel I have little control over my life” to 3 = “I feel I have great control over my life”; Cichocka et al., in press ). To facilitate the interpretation of the results, participants’ responses were then recoded from 1 to 7, with higher scores indicating greater personal control (α = .79).

Verbal aggression was measured with the five-item subscale of Verbal Aggression from the Buss and Perry’s (1992) aggression questionnaire. Participants rated to what extent they agreed with statements such as “I can’t help getting into arguments when people disagree with me” on a 7-point scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree (α = .77).

Bivariate relations

Zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics can be found in Table 1 . In line with our expectations, power over others and personal control were positively correlated. Power over others was significantly positively correlated with aggressiveness, whereas personal control was negatively and nonsignificantly correlated with aggressiveness. Gender was significantly related only to personal control, with men scoring higher than women.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between Variables With Confidence Intervals (Study 1).

Power over others and personal control as predictors of verbal aggression

We then used structural equation modeling to examine whether power over others and personal control predicted verbal aggression in opposite directions. The measurement model for the predictors included power over others and gender as manifest variables and personal control as a latent variable with three indices. The measurement model for the outcome included aggression as a latent variable with five indices. As illustrated in Figure 1 , 3 whereas power over others predicted verbal aggression significantly and positively, b = 0.21 [0.14, 0.29], p < .001, personal control predicted it significantly and negatively, b = −0.17 [–0.26, –0.08], p < .001. The effect of gender was not significant, b = 0.15 [–0.08, 0.37], p = .20.

Power over others and personal control as predictors of verbal aggression (Study 1).

Note. The simplified measurement model with standardized coefficients. Goodness-of-fit indices: χ 2 (30) = 116.18, p < .001, χ 2 / df = 3.87, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .06 [0.05, 0.07], SRMR = .04. CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.

We also examined whether the increase in strength of the effects of power over others and personal control were significant after we accounted for their overlap. To this end, we tested for suppression effects, in which the inclusion of both predictors in the same model increases their predictive validity (e.g., MacKinnon et al., 2000 ). In both models, gender was included as a covariate. We found a significant suppressing effect of personal control, unstandardized estimate = −0.08 [–0.13, –0.04], indicating that the effect of power over others strengthened when personal control was included in the model, and a significant suppressing effect of power over others, unstandardized estimate = 0.11 [0.07, 0.17], indicating that the effect of personal control strengthened when power over others was included in the model.

Study 1 demonstrated that personal control and power over others were positively correlated, yet associated with antisocial tendencies in opposite ways. In line with previous results, the higher the power participants reported having over others, the more verbal aggression they reported ( C. Anderson & Brion, 2014 ; Faris & Felmlee, 2011 ; Workplace Bullying Institute, 2014 ). Yet, this study extended previous findings by demonstrating a mitigating effect of control over one’s life on antisocial tendencies: The higher the personal control participants reported having, the lower was their tendency to be verbally aggressive. Furthermore, these effects were strongest when the overlap between power over others and personal control was adjusted for, indicating mutual suppressing effects of power and control on antisocial tendencies. Our findings indicate that the desirable effects of personal control are most pronounced after we account for its overlap with power over others. They also suggest that, in fact, the corruptive role of power could have been underestimated in past research that did not take into account the suppressing role of personal control: Once we take it into account, the effects of power over others become even stronger.

In Study 2, we sought to examine our hypotheses in a different context and with a different operationalization of antisocial tendencies. This time, we conducted the study in the United States and considered the role of power over others and personal control in predicting interpersonal exploitativeness—a tendency to use others for personal benefit (see Brunell et al., 2013 ). We expected that, although feelings of having power over others and personal control would be positively correlated, power over others would be associated with a higher tendency to exploit others, whereas personal control would be associated with a lower tendency to exploit others.

Study 2 was an online survey conducted using the Prolific Academic platform among American participants. We recruited 449 part-time or full-time employees at various levels in organizational hierarchies. Participants completed measures of power over others and personal control (counterbalanced), then reported their exploitative tendencies. The final sample consisted of 445 participants who reported U.S. residency: 231 line employees (subordinate level), 105 low-level managers, 85 medium-level managers, and 24 high-level managers, aged from 18 to 70 years ( M = 32.53 years, SD = 10.82 years), of whom 189 were women (coded as 1) and 248 men (coded as 2); eight participants failed to indicate their gender. 4

Power over others was measured with three items: “To what extent do you have influence over people in your organization?” “To what extent do you have influence over decisions taken in your organization?” and “How much power do you have in your organization?” Participants were asked to report on 7-point scales from –3 = very little to 3 = very much . To facilitate interpretation of results, participants’ responses were then recoded from 1 to 7, with higher scores indicating greater power over others (α = .96).

Personal control was measured with the same three items as in Study 1, with responses recoded to a 1 to 7 scale (α = .82).

Interpersonal exploitativeness was measured with a six-item scale developed by Brunell and colleagues (2013) . Participants were asked to rate the extent of their agreement with the statements (e.g., “It doesn’t bother me to benefit at someone else’s expense,” “I’m perfectly willing to profit at the expense of others”) on a 7-point scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree (α = .93).

Zero-order correlations and descriptives are presented in Table 2 . Power over others and personal control were significantly correlated. Exploitativeness was marginally positively associated with power over others, and negatively but not significantly with personal control. Men reported higher power over others, personal control (marginally), and exploitativeness than women.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between Variables With Confidence Intervals (Study 2).

Power over others and personal control as predictors of interpersonal exploitativeness

As in Study 1, we tested a structural equation model. The measurement model for the predictors included power over others and personal control as latent variables with three indices each, and gender as a manifest variable. The measurement model for the outcome included exploitativeness as a latent variable with six indices. As illustrated in Figure 2 , power over others predicted exploitativeness significantly and positively, b = 0.11 [0.03, 0.19], p = .01. Personal control predicted exploitativeness negatively, b = −0.12 [–0.24, 0.001], p = .06, although this effect was only marginally significant. The effect of gender was significant, b = 0.66 [0.43, 0.89], p < .001, indicating that men showed greater antisocial tendencies than women. The strength of the effects remained similar when gender was not adjusted for, although in this case, the effect for personal control was nonsignificant (see details in the supplemental material ).

Power over others and personal control as predictors of exploitativeness (Study 2).

Note. The simplified measurement model with standardized coefficients. Goodness-of-fit indices: χ 2 (59) = 130.69, p < .001, χ 2 / df = 2.22, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .05 [0.04, 0.06], SRMR = .03. CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.

Bootstrapping analyses with gender as a covariate yielded a significant suppressing effect of personal control, unstandardized estimate = −0.03 [–0.06, –0.001], indicating that the effect of power over others strengthened when personal control was included in the model, and a significant suppressing effect of power over others, unstandardized estimate = 0.05 [0.01, 0.10], indicating that the effect of personal control strengthened when power over others was included in the model.

The results of Study 2 were consistent with those of Study 1, showing that power over others and personal control had opposite effects for antisocial behavioral tendencies. In line with previous work, power over others predicted readiness to exploit (cf. C. Anderson et al., 2012 ), but personal control was linked to lower exploitativeness (although in the latter case, the effect was only marginally significant). Furthermore, we observed mutual suppressing effects, meaning that the effects of power over others and personal control on antisocial tendencies were stronger once we accounted for the overlap between the two predictors.

In Study 3, we sought to examine the effects of power over others and personal control on both interpersonal exploitativeness and verbal aggression. Moreover, we further tested whether both personal control and power over others were associated with holding high positions. Therefore, besides personal control and power over others, we measured one’s objective position in a hierarchy. To this end, Study 3 was specifically designed to enroll people who occupied low, medium, or high positions in organizations. We hypothesized that power over others and personal control will serve as parallel, yet opposite, mediators of the link between high positions and the two indicators of antisocial tendencies.

Study 3 was part of a larger organizational survey. Participants were recruited from various sized organizations by an external research agency. They took part in computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPI) in their workplace. We originally sought to include 600 participants. We aimed for a sample of full-time employees, approximately one third at the nonmanagerial, one third at low- or medium-level managerial positions, and one third at the top managerial positions, gender balanced at each of the organizational levels. We obtained data from 600 participants, but we excluded 43 individuals who did not fulfill our basic inclusion criteria (e.g., not having a full-time position, failing to give full consent for participating in the study).

The final sample consisted of 557 Polish adults: 284 women (coded as 1), 273 men (coded as 2), aged from 19 to 83 years ( M = 39.98 years, SD = 9.77 years) working at various organizations at different levels of the organizational hierarchy: 194 were assistants or line employees, 201 were low- or medium-level managers, and the remaining 162 were higher level or top managers. Participants completed measures of power over others, personal control, exploitativeness, and verbal aggression, among other variables.

Power over others was measured with four items, similar to those used in Study 2 (e.g., “To what extent do you have influence over people in your organization?”). Participants were asked to report on 6-point scales how much influence they had from –3 = very little to 3 = very much . Participants’ responses were recoded to a 1 to 6 scale, with higher scores indicating greater power over others (α = .95).

Personal control was measured with the same three items as in Study 1 but with the use of a 6-point scale. Participants’ responses were recoded to a 1 to 6 scale (α = .80).

Verbal aggression was measured with the same five-item verbal aggression subscale ( Buss & Perry, 1992 ) as in Study 1. One item measuring relations with friends was omitted from the analyses because it was not relevant to the workplace context, although retaining this item yields a similar pattern of results. Final analyses were conducted with four items (α = .72).

Interpersonal exploitativeness was measured with the six-item scale as in Study 2 ( Brunell et al., 2013 ). We excluded the item “Vulnerable people are fair game,” which was weakly correlated with the latent construct (in line with the recommendations of Brown, 2006 , and Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007 ). Although retaining the additional item yields a similar pattern of results, the final analyses were conducted with five items (α = .85). 5

Zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics are presented in Table 3 . Power over others was significantly positively correlated with personal control, and with the two indices of antisocial tendencies: aggressiveness and exploitativeness. Personal control was negatively correlated with aggressiveness and exploitativeness, although only the latter correlation was statistically significant. The two indices of antisocial tendencies were correlated with each other. Gender was unrelated to both power over others and personal control, but it was significantly related to the tendencies to be verbally aggressive and exploitative toward others (with men showing higher antisocial tendencies than women).

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between Variables With Confidence Intervals (Study 3).

We then analyzed relationships between position in the organizational hierarchy and the focal variables with ANOVA conducted in SPSS (see Table 4 ). We found main effects of position for power over others and personal control. Simple main effects computed separately for each of the variables with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons showed that both power over others and personal control increased with higher organizational position. The main effect of position was nonsignificant for exploitativeness and marginal for aggression, but there were no significant simple main effects for these two outcomes across the levels of organizational hierarchy (we only observed a marginally significant difference between top-level and low-level employees in verbal aggression, p = .08).

Tests of Differences in Means of Focal Variables Across Levels Within the Organizational Hierarchy (Study 3).

Note . Different superscripts represent differences significant at p < .05 between means within rows (with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons).

We repeated these analyses including gender as a factor, and found significant effects of gender on verbal aggression, F (1, 551) = 6.32, p = .01, and interpersonal exploitativeness, F (1, 551) = 4.00, p = .046, indicating that men tended to be more verbally aggressive and exploitative than women. There were no significant effects of gender on power and personal control. We also did not find any significant interactions between gender and organizational position (see details in supplementary material ).

Power over others and personal control as mediators of the effect of organizational position on antisocial tendencies

We then examined whether high organizational position was associated with antisocial tendencies through power over others and personal control using structural equation modeling. The predictors were organizational position, recoded on two dummy variables, comparing line employees with mid- and top-level managers, respectively, and gender as manifest variables. The measurement model for the intervening variables included power over others with four indices, and personal control with three indices. The measurement model for the outcome formed a two-level structure: It included nine observed variables, which formed two first-level latent variables (four for verbal aggression and five for interpersonal exploitativeness).

As illustrated in Figure 3 , both power over others and personal control were significantly stronger among those occupying midlevel and top-level organizational positions relative to low-level positions. Thus, a higher position within the organizational hierarchy predicted both higher perceived power over others and higher personal control. Occupying a midlevel, in comparison with a low-level, position within the organizational hierarchy predicted an increase in perceived power over others, b = 1.77 [1.55, 1.97], p < .001, and a simultaneous (albeit smaller) increase in perceived personal control, b = 0.46 [0.27, 0.65], p < .001. Similarly, occupying a top-level position, in comparison with a low-level position, predicted both an increase in perceived power over others, b = 2.65 [2.44, 2.85], p < .001, and in perceived personal control, b = 0.89 [0.71, 1.08], p < .001. Gender was neither associated with power over others, b = 0.05 [–0.11, 0.21], p = .51, nor with personal control, b = 0.02 [–0.13, 0.17], p = .79.

Power over others and personal control as mediators of the effect of organizational position on antisocial tendencies (Study 3).

Note. The simplified measurement model with standardized coefficients. Goodness-of-fit indices: χ 2 (139) = 411.29, p < .001, χ 2 / df = 2.96, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .059 [0.053, 0.066], SRMR = .05. CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.

Furthermore, whereas power over others predicted antisocial tendencies measured with verbal aggression and interpersonal exploitativeness significantly and positively, b = 0.16 [0.04, 0.27], p = .01, personal control predicted them significantly and negatively, b = −0.31 [–0.47, –0.12], p = .001. Indirect effects of mid- and top-level positions, compared with a low-level position, on antisocial tendencies via personal control were significant: estimates = −0.14 [–0.27, –0.05], and –0.27 [–0.46, –0.11], respectively. Similarly, the indirect effects of mid- and top-level positions (compared with low-level positions) on antisocial tendencies via power over others were significant, estimates = 0.28 [0.08, 0.48], and 0.42 [0.12, 0.72], respectively.

After accounting for the significant indirect effects via power over others and personal control, holding neither a midlevel, b = −0.07 [–0.34, 0.20], p = .62, nor a top-level organizational position had a direct effect on antisocial tendencies, b = 0.10 [–0.26, 0.46], p = .60. However, the direct effect of gender was still significant, b = 0.24 [0.04, 0.42], p = .02, indicating greater antisocial tendencies in men than in women. There were no significant indirect effects of gender on antisocial tendencies (estimate via personal control = −0.01 [–0.06, 0.04], estimate via power over others = 0.01 [–0.01, 0.04]).

In addition, the total effect of midlevel (relative to low-level) position on antisocial tendencies, β = .04 [–0.08, 0.16], b = 0.07 [–0.16, 0.29], p = .55, was not significant. However, the total effect of a top-level (relative to a low-level) position on antisocial tendencies was marginally significant, β = .12 [–0.003, 0.25], b = 0.24 [–0.01, 0.48], p = .06, indicating a weak overall corruptive effect of high positions. Total effect of gender was significant, β = .13 [0.02, 0.24], b = 0.24 [0.04, 0.43], p = .02.

Study 3 extended the findings of Studies 1 and 2 by demonstrating that power and personal control were parallel, yet opposing, mediators of the association between organizational position and antisocial tendencies. We found that the higher the position individuals held within the organization, the higher the power and personal control they experienced (cf. Leach, Weick, & Lammers, 2017 ). However, people at different levels of organizational position did not significantly differ in their self-reported levels of aggressiveness or exploitativeness (although top-level managers were marginally more aggressive than low-level employees). Our analyses demonstrated that this was because a higher organizational position was simultaneously associated with enhanced power, which positively predicted antisocial tendencies, and enhanced personal control, which negatively predicted antisocial tendencies.

Because the current findings are based on correlational data, our inferences about causality are limited. It is of course plausible that it is those with antisocial tendencies that feel more powerful over others and less in control of their lives, or that people with a higher sense of power and control are promoted more readily. It is also possible that these factors affect each other in a dynamic system. Still, our studies offer preliminary evidence of mechanisms that might drive the connections between holding positions of authority and diverse social outcomes.

General Discussion

In three studies, using different operationalizations of predictors and dependent variables, and samples from Western (the United States) and Eastern European (Poland) countries, we found converging evidence regarding the opposite effects of power over others and personal control. Whereas power over others was associated positively with antisocial tendencies, personal control was associated negatively with them. These results are consistent with previous findings on the desirable effects of personal control ( Deci & Ryan, 1985 ; Weinstein & Ryan, 2010 ) and the destructive effects of power (e.g., Gruenfeld et al., 2008 ; Inesi et al., 2012 ; Kipnis, 1972 ). We observed these relationships over and above the effects of gender. Although in some of the studies, gender was associated with experienced power over others (Study 2) and personal control (Studies 1-2) as well as with antisocial tendencies (Studies 2-3), adjusting for gender in the analyses did not meaningfully affect the strength of the relationships of power over others and personal control with antisocial tendencies.

Importantly, we demonstrated that these two processes operate simultaneously within the individual. Both perceptions of power over others and personal control seem to stem from holding high positions within social hierarchies. In Study 3, we found that higher positions within organizations were associated both with increased perceived power over others and increased personal control. Thus, power over others and personal control share a certain amount of variance and, therefore, they tend to suppress each other—only when accounting for their overlap, can we observe their direct effects on antisocial tendencies.

The positive effects of personal control were most clearly observed once we accounted for its overlap with perceived power over others. Similarly, including personal control strengthened the positive association between power over others and antisocial tendencies. This suggests that the corruptive effects of power may, in fact, have been underestimated in previous studies in which the opposing effects of personal control were not accounted for. Overall, our work helps explain the inconsistent findings on the relation between power and antisocial tendencies (cf. C. Anderson et al., 2012 ). These mixed results may be attributed to the diverging psychological experiences resulting from holding a high position.

Thus, in this work, we highlight the role of the dual psychological processes responsible for the different outcomes of high position. Our approach is then different from previous work highlighting the different effects of different types of power. For example, Sassenberg, Ellemers, and Scheepers (2012) differentiated power construed as opportunity (to achieve one’s goals via influence) or as responsibility (for the implications of one’s actions resulting from one’s influence). Both these construals focus on control over others’ outcomes and, thus, should be related to our “power over others” component. Our distinction is probably more akin to that of Lammers et al.’s (2009) , who differentiated personal power (freedom from others) from social power (power over others). They demonstrated that although both forms of power increase approach motivation, personal power increases stereotyping, and social power decreases it. Compared with these authors, we differentiate between perceptions of power over others and personal control over one’s life (rather than independence from others), and propose that these are not two types of power, but rather two processes inherently intertwined with holding high positions in the society. In fact, based on our findings, we could expect power over others to increase stereotyping (to the extent that it reflects negative treatment of others) and approach motivation, but personal control to decrease stereotyping and also decrease (rather than increase) approach motivation (see Greenaway et al., 2015 ).

Our work also helps to clarify some of the desirable effects of a high position in the social hierarchy. For example, our work could explain why Blader and Chen (2012 , see also Blader, Shirako, & Chen, 2016 ) found that high status (which might be more strongly related to personal control), but not high power over others, was linked to just treatment of others. Furthermore, research by Guinote (2007) demonstrated desirable effects of power for the individual in terms of “attunement to the situation by means of selective attention and processing flexibility” (p. 256). She argued that these effects can primarily be explained by the link between power and personal control. For example, in an experiment by Guinote, Brown, and Fiske (2006) , members of an arguably more powerful majority group engaged in more focused reasoning than members of a minority group due to an increased sense of control. We propose that differential outcomes might be observed if we simultaneously considered the mediating effect of personal control, alongside the effects of feelings of power associated with higher group status (or other indices of high position). The examination of the effects of personal control versus power over others on information processing await future research.

Taken together, the results of our studies shed new light on the social dynamics of climbing up the organizational or, more broadly, social ladder. People are motivated to strive for high power positions to enhance their autonomy and ability to achieve goals, rather than to gain influence on others ( Lammers et al., 2016 ). It is at least plausible that due to this more noble motivation, they might hope that attaining higher position would have positive societal consequences. To the extent that power increases personal control, it does. Nevertheless, holding a high position is associated not only with personal control but also with the ability to exert power over others, which tends to have negative effects on social relations.

Interestingly, in Study 3, position seemed to more strongly predict perceptions of power than those of personal control. Power by definition is a relational concept ( Emerson, 1962 ). Feelings of power are, thus, grounded in existing social arrangements, such as occupying a certain organizational position. In contrast, personal control might have been additionally affected by factors outside of the organization, such as the broader social and economic context (e.g., Bukowski, de Lemus, Rodriguez-Bailón, & Willis, 2017 ). Thus, the experience of personal control may fluctuate more over time than that of power over others. This may have important social implications. In changing political and social climates, even those occupying high social positions may experience occasional threats to personal control. Hence, the increased personal control among those holding high positions may take a longer time to fully stabilize. Future research should, therefore, test how the experiences, power, personal control, and their consequences develop over time.

Examining the stability and legitimacy of high status positions could also elucidate the boundary conditions for the observed effects. Past work suggests that unstable high positions are more conducive to undesirable consequences. For example, when the hierarchy was unstable, dominant leaders were inclined to exclude threatening group members ( Maner & Mead, 2010 ). Also, when put in teams, leaders competed over position in a newly formed group, thus undermining collaboration and team performance ( Hildreth & Anderson, 2016 ). It is then possible that a tenuous hold of a high position decreases personal control, while strengthening the need to assert power, resulting in yet stronger negative interpersonal consequences. At the same time, past work demonstrated that when power difference was perceived as illegitimate, the tendency to take action and risk diminished among the powerful but increased among the powerless, reorienting them toward greater agency aimed at system change ( Lammers, Galinsky, Gordijn, & Otten, 2008 ). The stability and legitimacy of hierarchy may then moderate the effects of power over others as well as personal control on the antisocial behavior we observed in our studies.

These studies are of course not free from limitations. Because our research was correlational, it was not possible to establish causality between variables. We chose a cross-sectional design because we were interested in the analysis of concurrent opposing processes. In practice, this means that real-life powerholders should show a dual tendency in responding to social situations: On one hand, their heightened sense of personal control might foster a more benevolent interpersonal behavior; on the other hand, their sense of power might tempt them to act more aggressively or exploitatively. Therefore, it would be difficult to experimentally place people in high (vs. low) positions and evoke only one of these processes. Nevertheless, we hope that our studies help clarify the psychological processes and outcomes associated with holding a high position.

In his correspondence to Acton (1887/ 1906 ), Creighton wrote,

I remember that in 1880 I met John Bright at dinner: he was very cross, apparently a cabinet meeting had disagreed with him. Amongst other things he said: “If the people knew what sort of men statesmen were, they would rise and hang the whole lot of them.” Next day I met a young man who had been talking to Gladstone, who urged him to parliamentary life, saying: “Statesmanship is the noblest way to serve mankind.” (p. 370)

Our studies suggest that both politicians’ remarks regarding holding a high position in the social hierarchy may have merit. Holding a high position can be both corruptive and ennobling, and the overall effect may depend on which of these two opposing processes prevails.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

The authors would like to thank Giacomo Marchesi for his help with article preparation.

1. Throughout the article square brackets represent 95% bootstrapped confidence intervals with 50,000 resamples.

2. This survey was also used by Cichocka, Dhont, and Makwana (2017 ; Study 4), but these authors focused on a different set of variables.

3. In all studies, standardized coefficients are presented in figures to facilitate comparisons of relative effect sizes. Unstandardized coefficients are reported in text to facilitate interpretation of relations between nominal predictor variables (gender in all studies and position in Study 3) and the dependent variables.

4. Contrary to our expectations, we were not able to enroll comparable groups at lower, medium, and higher levels of organizational hierarchy via Prolific Academic. Sample size decreased with the increasing level in organizational hierarchy, and the sample of high-level managers was 10 times smaller than the sample of line employees, limiting the possibility of testing the indirect effects of position. Therefore, in this study, we tested the same model as in Study 1, and relied on Study 3 for a full test of the model.

5. Several other theoretically relevant measures of antisocial tendencies were included in Study 3, such as objectification of others ( Gruenfeld, Inesi, Magee, & Galinsky, 2008 ) and deviant organizational behavior ( Bennett & Robinson, 2000 ). Although these variables were included for the purposes of a different project (and, therefore, are not reported in detail here), a similar pattern of results was found when these variables were included as indices of antisocial tendencies (please contact the first author for details).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Aleksandra Cislak, Aleksandra Cichocka, and Natalia Frankowska were supported by the National Science Center Grant 2014//13/B/HS6/03137. Adrian Wojcik was supported by the National Science Centre Grant 2014//15/B/HS6/03738.

Supplemental Material: Supplementary material is available online with this article.

Strategian Science

Cogent – Curated – Updated || Since 1999 || Produced by humans

Corruption and power: the connection

Was Lord Acton right? “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Or, is it more as John Steinbeck described “Power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts… perhaps the fear of a loss of power”?

Is there a connection between having power (in politics, government, business, etc.) and becoming or being corrupt? There seem to be examples all around us and, yet, we also see prominent people who appear not to succumb.

And, what are the effects of power when it comes to recognizing corruption? What about those with little power personally, yet are part of an organization, political party, or other movement which is controlled and run on a power dynamic?

Once we achieve some level of power–whether personally in our lives or at a much higher level–are we destined to lose perspective and become inured or blind to the appearances and effects of corruption?

What does the research say?

** see the most current version of this bibliography at https://sciencebibliographies.strategian.com/corruption-and-power-the-connection/

Featured articles :

*Kong, D. T., & Volkema, R. (2016). Cultural endorsement of broad leadership prototypes and wealth as predictors of corruption . Social Indicators Research, 127(1), 139-152. [ Cited by ]

“ Corruption is a social ill that involves public officials’ misuse of entrusted power , which is a function of sociocultural factors. Rarely, however, do researchers view corruption as a leadership-related problem. In the current research, we conceptualize corruption as a leadership-related problem , and propose three broad leadership prototypes based on social value orientation theory and research. We seek to examine (1) how cultural endorsement of self-serving, prosocial, and individualistic leadership prototypes is related to corruption at the societal level and (2) how wealth moderates the relationship between cultural endorsement of self-serving leadership and corruption . Using archival data of 53 societies, we found that cultural endorsement of self-serving leadership was positively related to corruption, strengthened by wealth . Cultural endorsement of prosocial leadership and individualistic leadership, however, was not significantly related to corruption, and wealth did not moderate either of the relationships . The implications of these findings for theory and future research are discussed.”

*Rosenblatt, V. (2012). Hierarchies, power inequalities, and organizational corruption . Journal of Business Ethics, 111(2), 237-251. [ Cited by ]

“This article uses social dominance theory (SDT) to explore the dynamic and systemic nature of the initiation and maintenance of organizational corruption. Rooted in the definition of organizational corruption as misuse of power or position for personal or organizational gain , this work suggests that organizational corruption is driven by the individual and institutional tendency to structure societies as group-based social hierarchies. SDT describes a series of factors and processes across multiple levels of analysis that systemically contribute to the initiation and maintenance of social hierarchies and associated power inequalities, favoritism, and discrimination . I posit that the same factors and processes also contribute to individuals’ lower awareness of the misuse of power and position within the social hierarchies, leading to the initiation and maintenance of organizational corruption . Specifically, individuals high in social dominance orientation, believing that they belong to superior groups, are likely to be less aware of corruption because of their feeling of entitlement to greater power and their desire to maintain dominance even if that requires exploiting others. Members of subordinate groups are also likely to have lower awareness of corruption if they show more favoritism toward dominant group members to enhance their sense of worth and preserve social order. Institutions contribute to lower awareness of corruption by developing and enforcing structures, norms, and practices that promote informational ambiguity and maximize focus on dominance and promotion . Dynamic coordination among individuals and institutions is ensured through the processes of person-environment fit and legitimizing beliefs, ideologies, or rationalizations.”

*Tan, X., Liu, L., Huang, Z., Zhao, X., & Zheng, W. (2016). The dampening effect of social dominance orientation on awareness of corruption: Moral outrage as a mediator . Social Indicators Research, 125(1), 89-102. [ Cited by ]

“ Corruption is one of the most detrimental factors to economies and social development, and it has become a universal problem around the world .

The present study aimed at exploring the role of social dominance orientation (SDO) on awareness of corruption and the mediating effect of moral outrage on this relationship.”

“Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a measure of an individual’s support for group-based hierarchies. It reflects a person’s attitudes toward hierarchies in general, as well as beliefs about whether one’s own group should dominate other groups.”

“To accomplish the objectives, we performed three empirical substudies with both correlational and experimental designs. In Substudy 1, SDO, moral outrage, and awareness of corruption were all measured with scales. The results indicated that SDO was negatively associated with moral outrage and awareness of corruption . In addition, moral outrage mediated the relationship between SDO and awareness of corruption. In Substudy 2, awareness of corruption was measured in a bribery scenario, and the results also indicated that moral outrage mediated the dampening role of SDO on awareness of corruption. In Substudy 3, SDO was manipulated by placing respondents in a dominant or a subordinate condition. The results indicated that compared with the subordinate position condition, the respondents primed by the dominant position condition reported less moral outrage and lower awareness of corruption . The three substudies consistently confirmed the dampening effect of SDO on awareness of corruption and the mediating effect of moral outrage on this relationship . The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.”

*Tan, X., Liu, L., Huang, Z., & Zheng, W. (2017). Working for the hierarchical system: The role of meritocratic ideology in the endorsement of corruption . Political Psychology, 38(3), 469-479. [ Cited by ]

“ Meritocratic ideology is the belief that, in a given system, success is an indicator of personal deservingness—namely, that the system rewards individual ability and efforts.”

“ Corruption has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies, but it is widespread throughout the world . There is a question, however, as to whether corruption is endorsed as an outcome of a legitimate hierarchy and meritocracy. To address this issue, the present study examines the associations between meritocratic ideology and the indicators of corruption by performing two empirical studies with correlational and experimental designs. In Study 1, all variables were measured with scales, and the results demonstrated that meritocratic ideologies were negatively associated with corruption perception but positively associated with corrupt intention . In Study 2, meritocratic ideology was manipulated, and the results demonstrated that compared with the low meritocratic‐ideology condition, the participants primed by the high meritocratic‐ideology condition reported a lower corruption perception but higher corrupt intention . In both studies, the findings suggest that the meritocratic ideology that motivates people to maintain and bolster the current hierarchical structure and meritocracy leads to the endorsement of corruption . The present study explores the roles of meritocratic ideology in the perception and intention of corruption, extends the scope of the predictive power of system justification theory to corruption beyond mere injustice‐related aspects of disadvantage, and also provides suggestions for interpreting and fighting against corruption.”

*Wang, F., & Sun, X. (2016). Absolute power leads to absolute corruption? impact of power on corruption depending on the concepts of power one holds . European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(1), 77-89. [ PDF ] [ Cited by ]

“ Power has long been linked to the stigma of corruption . Three studies indicated that different power concepts have different implications for corruption behavior and perception. The personalized power concept relates to using power to pursue self‐centered goals for one’s own benefit , whereas the socialized power concept relates to using power to pursue other‐focused goals for benefiting and helping others. Three studies were conducted to explore the effect of these two types of power concepts on corrupt intention or practice. The power concepts were measured in Study 1, primed through previous experience in Study 2, and utilized within a specific context in Study 3, respectively. Taken together, the three studies indicate that the personalized (vs. socialized) power concept increases (vs. decreases) self‐interested behavior and tolerance towards others’ (especially high‐position others’) corrupt practices .”

Questions? Please let me know ( [email protected] ) .

Share this:

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Skip to main content
• Accessibility information

• Enlighten Enlighten

Enlighten Theses

• Latest Additions
• Browse by Year
• Browse by Subject
• Browse by College/School
• Browse by Author
• Browse by Funder
• Login (Library staff only)

In this section

Essays on corruption, inequality, and economic growth

Majeed, Muhammad (2012) Essays on corruption, inequality, and economic growth. PhD thesis, University of Glasgow.

This thesis investigates novel and unique avenues of corruption in an attempt to reach a better understanding of the causes of corruption. In particular, the thesis theoretically and empirically examines the implication of the military in politics in breeding corruption and the importance of financial development in reducing corruption. The thesis also improves our understanding of cross-country variations in inequality and economic growth by providing a deeper analysis of growth-inequality relationship with a particular focus on the role of globalisation and domestic policy reforms.

To achieve this aim, the thesis contains four core chapters (essays) in addition to an introductory chapter, literature review chapter and a concluding chapter. The four core chapters can be viewed different from one another. The first two core chapters address the causes of corruption. In particular, the first of these two chapters assess the role of military in politics in determining corruption levels, and investigate how important financial development is for corruption. The other two core chapters provide deeper understanding of cross-country variations in inequality, poverty and economic growth.

Recent theoretical developments and case study evidence suggests a relationship between the military in politics and corruption. In the third chapter, this study contributes to this literature by analyzing theoretically and empirically the role of the military in politics and corruption for the first time. By drawing on a cross sectional and panel data set covering a large number of countries, over the period 1984-2007, and using a variety of econometric methods substantial empirical support is found for a positive relationship between the military in politics and corruption. In sum, our results reveal that a one standard deviation increase in the military in politics leads to a 0.22 unit increase in corruption index. This relationship is shown to be robust to a variety of specification changes, different econometric techniques, different sample sizes, alternative corruption indices and the exclusion of outliers. This study suggests that the explanatory power of the military in politics is at least as important as the conventionally accepted causes of corruption, such as economic development.

The importance of financial market reforms in combating corruption has been highlighted in the theoretical literature but has not been systemically tested empirically. In the fourth chapter, we provide a first pass at testing this relationship using both linear and non-monotonic forms of the relationship between corruption and financial intermediation. Our study finds a negative and statistically significant impact of financial intermediation on corruption. Specifically, the results imply that a one standard deviation increase in financial intermediation is associated with a decrease in corruption of 0.20 points, or 16 percent of the standard deviation in the corruption index and this relationship is shown to be robust to a variety of specification changes, including: (i) different sets of control variables; (ii) different econometrics techniques; (iii) different sample sizes; (iv) alternative corruption indices; (v) removal of outliers; (vi) different sets of panels; and (vii) allowing for cross country interdependence, contagion effects, of corruption.

In the fifth chapter, we examine the impact of globalisation on cross-country inequality and poverty using a panel data set for 65 developing counties, over the period 1970-2008. The role of globalisation in increasing inequality in economies with financial markets imperfections has been highlighted in the theoretical literature but has not been systemically tested empirically. We provide a first pass at testing this relationship between globalisation and inequality in the presence of underdeveloped financial markets. Our study finds a negative and statistically significant impact of globalisation on poverty in economies where financial systems are relatively developed, however, inequality-reducing effect of globalisation in these economies is limited. The other major findings of the study are five fold. First, a non-monotonic relationship between income distribution and the level of economic development holds in all samples of countries. Second, both openness to trade and FDI do not have a favourable effect on income distribution in all selected developing countries. Third, high financial liberalization exerts a negative and significant influence on income distribution in developing countries. Fourth, inflation seems to distort income distribution in all sets of countries. Finally, the government emerges as a major player in impacting income distribution in developing countries.

In the last core chapter, we analytically explore and empirically test the relationships between economic growth, inequality and trade. This study contributes in the existing literature by answering the question why growth effects of income inequality and trade are not definitely positive or negative. This study determines the positive effects of inequality and trade on growth both in the short run and long run. However, the growth effect of inequality is substantially influenced by the domestic context in terms of the prevalence of credit market imperfections. The study identifies credit market imperfections in low-income developing countries as the likely reason for a positive relationship between inequality and economic growth. Similarly, growth effect of trade is found to be negative in economies where inequalities are comparatively high. The results show that inequality does matter for economic growth, but in different ways for different regions at different levels of economic development. The inequality-growth nexus is significantly negative for the low-income group but strongly significantly positive for the high-income one. The findings of the study are robust to alternative econometric techniques, specifications, control of nonlinearity, inclusion of additional control variables, exclusion of outliers and sub-samples.

Actions (login required)

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics

The University of Glasgow is a registered Scottish charity: Registration Number SC004401

UNDERSTANDING CORRUPTION: WHY CORRUPTION EXISTS AND THE INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS NEEDED TO LESSEN ITS PRESENCE IN GOVERNMENT.

Embargo until, journal title, journal issn, volume title, description, collections.

• English Literature
• Short Stories
• Literary Terms
• Web Stories

Discuss the theme of the corrupting influence of power in William Shakespeare’s Macbeth

Table of Contents

William Shakespeare’s tragic play “ Macbeth ” explores the theme of the corrupting influence of power. The play delves into the consequences of unchecked ambition and the transformation of Macbeth, the protagonist, from a noble and loyal subject to a ruthless tyrant.

Theme the corrupting influence of power in Macbeth:- As Macbeth gains power and authority, he succumbs to its corrupting force, leading to his downfall and the destruction of those around him. This essay will analyze the various aspects of power portrayed in the play and examine how Shakespeare illustrates the gradual corruption of Macbeth’s character through his thirst for power.

The Temptation of Ambition

From the beginning of the play, Macbeth’s ambition is aroused when he hears the prophecies of the three witches, predicting that he will become the Thane of Cawdor and eventually the king. This prophecy ignites his desire for power, and the seed of corruption is planted. Macbeth’s initial hesitation to commit regicide demonstrates his moral conscience, but his wife, Lady Macbeth, manipulates him, questioning his masculinity and urging him to seize the opportunity. 

Also Read:-

• Analyze the use of metaphor in Langston Hughes Mother to Son
• How does Virginia Woolf use the concept of perception in Mrs. Dalloway
• Discuss the theme of the search for meaning in Albert Camus The Plague
• Discuss the theme of redemption in Charles Dickens A Tale of Two Cities

Theme the corrupting influence of power in Macbeth:- His ambition and desire for power become overpowering, and he ultimately succumbs to temptation, showing that power can corrupt even the noblest of individuals.

The Deterioration of Macbeth’s Morality

As Macbeth ascends to the throne, his actions become increasingly immoral and ruthless. His initial murder of King Duncan is a pivotal moment that marks his descent into corruption. The regicide not only establishes Macbeth’s thirst for power but also reveals his willingness to commit heinous acts to maintain it. The murder of his friend Banquo and the Macduff family further exemplify Macbeth’s moral deterioration. He becomes consumed by paranoia and fear, eliminating anyone he perceives as a threat to his reign. The corrupting influence of power has transformed Macbeth from a virtuous and honorable man into a merciless and bloodthirsty tyrant.

The Erosion of Relationships

Power not only corrupts Macbeth’s character but also erodes his relationships with others. His relationship with Lady Macbeth, initially a partnership based on mutual ambition, disintegrates as the couple descends into guilt and madness. Lady Macbeth’s guilt manifests in her sleepwalking and obsessive hand-washing, while Macbeth becomes increasingly isolated and detached from reality. Additionally, Macbeth’s tyrannical rule alienates his subjects, who turn against him, and even his most loyal allies abandon him. The corrupting influence of power not only destroys Macbeth’s moral compass but also erodes the bonds he once held dear.

The Inevitable Downfall

Despite his accumulation of power, Macbeth’s downfall is inevitable. The corrupting influence of power blinds him to the consequences of his actions and isolates him from his allies. As Macbeth faces opposition from Malcolm and Macduff, his arrogance and overconfidence lead to his demise. 

Also Read:- William Shakespeare Biography and Works

Theme the corrupting influence of power in Macbeth:- The witches’ prophecies, which initially fueled his ambition, prove to be misleading, and his misplaced trust in their promises contributes to his downfall. Macbeth’s final realization of the futility of his actions and the loss of everything he holds dear serves as a cautionary tale about the corrupting nature of power.

Macbeth “Summary”

Macbeth is a tragic play written by William Shakespeare around 1606. Set in Scotland, it tells the story of Macbeth, a brave and loyal general, whose ambition is ignited by supernatural forces, leading him to commit heinous acts in his quest for power and ultimately resulting in his downfall.

Theme the corrupting influence of power in Macbeth:- The play begins with Macbeth and his friend Banquo encountering three witches, also known as the Weird Sisters, who prophesy that Macbeth will become the Thane of Cawdor and eventually the king. Encouraged by these prophecies, Macbeth becomes consumed by his desire for power and decides to take matters into his own hands.

With the support of his ambitious wife, Lady Macbeth, Macbeth plots and murders King Duncan, who is a guest in their castle. Macbeth is plagued by guilt and paranoia after committing the regicide, but he is also driven to eliminate anyone who poses a threat to his position. He orders the murder of Banquo, who suspects Macbeth’s involvement in Duncan’s death, as well as Banquo’s son, Fleance.

Theme the corrupting influence of power in Macbeth:- As Macbeth spirals deeper into madness, he seeks guidance from the witches again, who provide him with more prophecies that further fuel his delusions. He becomes increasingly ruthless, ordering the slaughter of Macduff’s family and engaging in a final battle against the forces that oppose him.

However, Macbeth’s tyrannical reign and his reliance on the witches’ prophecies ultimately lead to his downfall. Lady Macbeth, burdened by guilt and haunted by the consequences of their actions, descends into madness and dies. Macbeth learns of her death and is filled with despair, yet he resolves to fight to the bitter end.

Theme the corrupting influence of power in Macbeth:- In the final battle, Macbeth faces Macduff, who was born through a cesarean section and thus fulfills the witches’ prophecy that “none of woman born shall harm Macbeth.” However, Macduff reveals that he was “untimely ripped” from his mother’s womb, making him the exception. Macduff kills Macbeth, restoring order and rightful rule to Scotland.

Macbeth serves as a cautionary tale about the corrupting influence of ambition and the consequences of unchecked power. The play explores themes of guilt, fate, and the nature of evil, showcasing Shakespeare’s profound understanding of human psychology and the destructive potential of ambition.

William Shakespeare’s play “Macbeth” vividly portrays the corrupting influence of power through the tragic transformation of its protagonist. Macbeth’s journey from a noble and virtuous individual to a ruthless and tyrannical ruler exemplifies the destructive nature of unchecked ambition. 

Theme the corrupting influence of power in Macbeth:- As Macbeth gains power, his morality deteriorates, leading him to commit heinous acts and disregard the values he once held dear. The erosion of his relationships and the isolation he experiences further emphasize the corrupting influence of power. 

Theme the corrupting influence of power in Macbeth:- Ultimately, Macbeth’s downfall serves as a cautionary tale, reminding audiences of the consequences of succumbing to the allure of power without considering the moral implications. Shakespeare’s exploration of the theme of the corrupting influence of power in “Macbeth” continues to resonate with audiences, prompting reflection on the fragile nature of human morality and the dangers of unbridled ambition.

Q: What is the main theme of “Macbeth”?

A: The main theme of “Macbeth” is the corrupting influence of power. The play explores how unchecked ambition and the pursuit of power can lead individuals to commit immoral and destructive acts, ultimately resulting in their downfall.

Q: What are some examples of Macbeth’s corruption throughout the play?

A: Macbeth’s corruption is evident in his transformation from a loyal and honorable subject to a ruthless tyrant. Some examples of his corruption include his initial hesitation to commit regicide but ultimately succumbing to his ambition, his willingness to murder King Duncan and others to secure his position, his increasing paranoia and fear that lead to the elimination of potential threats, and his gradual detachment from morality and reality as he becomes more consumed by power.

Q: How does power affect Macbeth’s relationships?

A: Power erodes Macbeth’s relationships throughout the play. His relationship with Lady Macbeth, initially based on mutual ambition, deteriorates as guilt and madness consume them both. Macbeth’s tyrannical rule isolates him from his subjects, who turn against him, and even his loyal allies distance themselves. The corrupting influence of power not only destroys Macbeth’s moral compass but also erodes the bonds he once held dear.

Q: What is the overall message or moral of “Macbeth”?

A: The overall message of “Macbeth” is a cautionary one about the corrupting nature of unchecked ambition and the pursuit of power. The play warns against the consequences of sacrificing one’s morality and disregarding the well-being of others in the relentless pursuit of personal gain. It serves as a reminder of the fragility of human morality and the destructive path that can result from succumbing to the allure of power without ethical restraint.

Related Posts

Top 10 English Novels of All Time Summary and Themes

The 48 Laws of Power Summary Chapterwise by Robert Greene

What is precisionism in literature.

Attempt a critical appreciation of The Triumph of Life by P.B. Shelley.

Consider The Garden by Andrew Marvell as a didactic poem.

Why does Plato want the artists to be kept away from the ideal state

MEG 05 LITERARY CRITICISM & THEORY Solved Assignment 2023-24

William Shakespeare Biography and Works

Discuss the theme of freedom in Frederick Douglass’ Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass

How does William Shakespeare use the concept of power in Richard III

Analyze the use of imagery in William Shakespeare’s sonnets

Who wrote “the boy behind the curtain”, what is the significance of the title “the slap”, which australian author wrote “big little lies”, what is the premise of “the secret garden” by frances hodgson burnett.

• Advertisement
• Privacy & Policy
• Other Links

© 2023 Literopedia

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Remember Me

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Are you sure want to unlock this post?

Are you sure want to cancel subscription.

Robert Menendez ‘Put His Power Up For Sale,’ Prosecutors Say in Senator’s Trial

The corruption trial of the New Jersey senator began on Wednesday with prosecutors describing a bribery scheme. The defense said he “was doing his job, and he was doing it right.”

• Share full article

Nicholas Fandos

Here are 5 takeaways from the opening statements in Robert Menendez’s corruption trial.

The corruption trial of Senator Robert Menendez , a powerful New Jersey Democrat, spun into motion in Manhattan on Wednesday, with combative opening statements and an extraordinary claim by the defense.

Speaking directly to the jury, a U.S. prosecutor asserted that Mr. Menendez “put his power up for sale,” trading favors involving Egypt and New Jersey businessmen for gold bars, cash and a Mercedes-Benz convertible. But it was a lawyer for Mr. Menendez who shook the courtroom awake, piling blame on the senator’s wife, Nadine Menendez.

Mr. Menendez, 70, betrayed little emotion as he watched the opening statements from the courtroom, where he is facing some of the gravest charges ever leveled against a sitting U.S. senator. He has pleaded not guilty.

He is being tried alongside two of the businessmen, Fred Daibes and Wael Hana. Prosecutors have also charged Ms. Menendez, but her trial was delayed until July for health reasons.

Here are five takeaways from the senator’s third day on trial:

The prosecution tried to keep it simple.

Prosecutors have spun a dizzying set of accusations against Mr. Menendez, filing four rounds of charges that involve a halal meat monopoly, a Qatari sheikh and the inner workings of the U.S. government. All of it could easily confuse jurors.

So laying out a road map for their case, they offered the panel a far simpler view: “This case is about a public official who put greed first,” said Lara Pomerantz, an assistant U.S. attorney. “A public official who put his own interests above the duty of the people, who put his power up for sale.”

What the jury needed to understand, she insisted, was that favors were granted by Mr. Menendez, including a letter ghost written to help Egypt and calls to pressure important government officials. In exchange, the couple amassed hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, bars of gold and much more, with Ms. Menendez as a “go-between.”

Who Are Key Players in the Menendez Case?

Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, and his wife, Nadine Menendez, are accused of taking part in a wide-ranging, international bribery scheme that lasted five years. Take a closer look at central figures related to the case.

The defense: A tale of two Menendezes.

Mr. Menendez’s lawyer, Avi Weitzman, used his first words to the jury to flatly deny that arrangement. But the heart of his defense was a head-turning proposition: Do not confuse the senator with his wife.

Mr. Menendez, his lawyer said, was “an American patriot,” the son of working-class immigrants who made it to Congress. All those instances of Mr. Menendez purportedly abusing his office to help a foreign power or New Jersey businessmen? They showed a senator “doing his job,” Mr. Weitzman said, asserting that the government had found no record of Mr. Menendez negotiating bribes.

He did not say the same of Ms. Menendez, who had come late into the senator’s life and concealed her financial burdens and communications from him, according to the lawyer. Mr. Weitzman did not outright say that Ms. Menendez accepted bribes. But if she did, he wanted to make it clear that his client did not know “what she was asking others to give her” — especially all that gold.

The gold was hidden in a closet.

To make his point, Mr. Weitzman displayed photographs of a closet that he said belonged to Ms. Menendez. It was there, in her private quarters, he disclosed, that the F.B.I. found the gold bars and cash with Mr. Daibes’ fingerprints.

The senator did know that his wife had some gold, but assumed it was from her wealthy family of Persian rug dealers, the lawyer said. When Mr. Menendez repeatedly searched for the price of gold on Google, the lawyer said, he was looking to see how much money Ms. Menendez could generate from that family gift — not to cash out a bribe.

“He did not know of the gold bars that existed in that closet,” he said.

Likewise, Mr. Weitzman said Mr. Menendez had been in the dark about how Ms. Menendez got the funds to purchase a $60,000 Mercedes-Benz convertible. In a guilty plea, another New Jersey businessman admitted that he gave Ms. Menendez the car “in return for influencing a United States senator to stop a criminal investigation.”

The high stakes trial is being overshadowed. Blame Trump.

The case against Mr. Menendez could hardly be more serious. It has already made history: Mr. Menendez is the first senator to be indicted in more than one bribery case. (The first ended in a mistrial in 2017.)

But as his trial opened this week in Lower Manhattan, it was hard to escape the conclusion that it was being overshadowed by the state courthouse just a few hundred yards away. That is where, thanks to a quirk of timing, former President Donald J. Trump is in the midst of his hush-money trial .

The first ever trial of a former president has inspired wall-to-wall cable news coverage. Unlike the Menendez case, it includes nationally known witnesses, like Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen. And it has attracted a parade of high-profile visitors to buck up Mr. Trump, including the speaker of the House.

All of it is probably good news for Mr. Menendez and his party, which is vulnerable to political attacks after allowing him to continue serving in the Senate under indictment.

Expect a long trial. That’s not good for Senate Democrats.

The case has proceeded unusually quickly since the government first brought charges in September 2023. As for the trial, do not expect a verdict anytime soon.

Prosecutors have said they may take as many as six weeks to lay out the tangled web of corruption they say surrounded Mr. Menendez. When Judge Sidney H. Stein read a list of dozens of potential witnesses (including several sitting senators), he informed jurors they would be likely to hear testimony in Spanish and Arabic.

The defense has indicated it will then take another one to two weeks, setting up a verdict sometime around July 4. Except for odd days off, Mr. Menendez will be stuck in the courtroom the whole time, depriving Democrats of a key vote in the Senate, where they control a spare 51-to-49 majority.

Maria Cramer and Maia Coleman contributed reporting.

Maria Cramer

Menendez was ‘doing his job,’ his lawyer says.

When Senator Robert Menendez reached out to the New Jersey attorney general about an investigation into Latino truckers, he was looking into concerns of discrimination, his lawyer, Avi Weitzman, said.

When he pressed for Egypt to get additional aid and weapons from the United States, he was engaging in diplomacy, Mr. Weitzman said.

And when a real estate developer, Fred Daibes, asked for help with a stalled project, the senator acted on behalf of a constituent, Mr. Weitzman said during opening statements on Wednesday at the beginning of the New Jersey Democrat’s corruption trial.

“In short, the evidence will show Bob was doing his job and he was doing it right,” Mr. Weitzman told the jury.

In an opening that lasted more than an hour, Weitzman referred to the senator as “Bob,” describing him as a dedicated legislator and “American patriot” who was not taking bribes but doing the everyday job of a legislator.

Mr. Weitzman, in a telling moment that indicated how the defense would present its case to the jury, said that Mr. Menendez had no idea that the gold bars found in his wife’s closet had come from Mr. Daibes.

Ms. Menendez is being tried separately in July. She is accused of acting as a go-between for Mr. Menendez, Egyptian intelligence officials and businessmen, including Mr. Daibes, who were seeking political favors from the senator.

But Mr. Weitzman said that Ms. Menendez had financial troubles she was trying to keep from her husband. Her dealings with New Jersey businessmen like Mr. Daibes had nothing to do with Mr. Menendez, Mr. Weitzman said.

Mr. Weitzman suggested that it was easy for Ms. Menendez to keep her husband in the dark about her “financial challenges.”

The senator and his wife kept separate lives — not even sharing a phone plan — and the senator adored Ms. Menendez, whom he found “dazzling” and began dating in 2018, Mr. Weitzman said.

She was beautiful, tall and spoke four languages, Mr. Weitzman said: “Bob fell for her.”

Advertisement

Tracey Tully

Menendez was a senator ‘on the take,’ prosecutors said.

In her opening statement, Lara Pomerantz, an assistant U.S. attorney, used short sentences and relatable language to guide jurors through the complicated framework of the bribery charges against Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey.

She accused Mr. Menendez of being as corrupt as he was powerful.

“This was not politics as usual,” Ms. Pomerantz said of Mr. Menendez, a Democrat who until last year led the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “This was politics for profit. This was a United States senator on the take.”

More than once she turned and gestured toward Mr. Menendez, who was seated behind her, flanked by his lawyers.

Mr. Menendez, 70, leaned forward attentively, but showed no obvious emotion, his hand at times resting on his chin and over his mouth.

Prosecutors have charged Mr. Menendez and his wife, Nadine Menendez, with a multifaceted bribery scheme that lasted from 2018 to 2023. The senator, Ms. Pomerantz told jurors, steered aid to Egypt — a country she said “was hungry” for American support. He meddled in criminal cases involving businessmen in New Jersey, Ms. Pomerantz said.

And, with Mr. Menendez’s backing, the government of Egypt “dropped a lucrative monopoly” in the lap of friend, who, she said, had no experience in the industry.

In exchange, the senator was given bribes of gold bars, cash and a luxury car, she said.

“For years,” Ms. Pomerantz said, “Robert Menendez betrayed the people he was supposed to serve by taking bribes.”

If these opening arguments are any indication of the trial ahead, it is going to be long, complex and fascinating. We already got privileged looks into the inner workings of government and the private life of one of the nation’s most powerful elected officials.

So that concludes a very lively day of opening statements. The government leveled major charges at Senator Menendez, asserting that he “put his power up for sale.” His lawyer denied the senator ever accepted a bribe and pinned blame on his wife, Nadine Menendez.

The trial returns from a break, but Judge Stein unexpectedly calls it a day. Lawyers for Wael Hana and Fred Daibes still have to deliver opening statements, and the parties agreed to pick them up tomorrow.

Judge Stein now lectures Weitzman, who tried to mention his twin and his grandparents who survived the Holocaust to connect their tales with Menendez’s troubles. “Your personal story is not for this jury,” Judge Stein says.

After a little more than an hour, the opening statement from Senator Menendez’s defense team has wrapped. Jurors will hear next from lawyers for his co-defendants, Wael Hana and Fred Daibes. But first, Judge Stein says the court will take a brief break.

Weitzman has gone on for more than an hour in his opening statement, prompting Judge Stein to ask how much longer he has to go. “A page and a half,” Weitzman replies. “You have a man’s lifetime of public service in your hands,” he says. He tells the jury the case will affect Menendez for the rest of his life, prompting an objection from prosecutors. Judge Stein sustains it and explains to the jury that they are not to worry about punishment. That’s his job.

The trial has now veered into a history lesson on the development of New Jersey’s waterfront across the Hudson River from New York City. Prosecutors say Menendez intervened with Qatar to help Daibes land a major investment in a real estate project on the waterfront, but Weitzman is disputing that Menendez played any improper role. He said the senator was merely carrying out normal foreign policy and his actions had no effect on the investment.

Maia Coleman

This is the second time Menendez faces federal corruption charges.

Wednesday was the first day of the federal corruption trial against Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, but the sight of Mr. Menendez at the defense table likely evoked images of an earlier court proceeding: Mr. Menendez’s 2017 corruption trial.

Long before Donald J. Trump became the first former U.S. president to be criminally prosecuted, Mr. Menendez, a Democrat, made history as the first sitting U.S. senator in 36 years to face a federal bribery trial over what prosecutors described as a scheme to trade political favors for lavish gifts.

Mr. Menendez was accused in 2015 of doing favors for a friend, Dr. Salomon Melgen, a wealthy eye doctor from Florida, in exchange for gifts, including rides on a private plane, and political donations. He was charged with 12 counts of corruption, including six counts of bribery and three counts of honest services fraud. Dr. Melgen was also accused in the case and tried alongside Mr. Menendez.

The trial, which lasted more than two months in late 2017, centered on whether Mr. Menendez’s friendship with Dr. Melgen had crossed a legal line, raising questions about intent, friendship and official government acts.

Closely watched in Washington for its implications on political donations, the trial in Newark saw appearances from several high-profile figures, including Senator Cory Booker, another New Jersey Democrat, and Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, both of whom testified as character witnesses for Mr. Menendez.

During closing arguments , Abbe Lowell, a lawyer for Mr. Menendez, called the charges “a lot of hooey over nothing,” saying that there was “a Grand Canyon” between the evidence presented and the accusations leveled against the senator. Peter Koski, the lead prosecutor, in his closing statements rebutted: “Friendship and bribery can coexist, ladies and gentlemen.”

After less than two weeks of deliberations, jurors said they were unable to reach a verdict, leaving the presiding judge, William H. Walls, to declare a mistrial . One juror told reporters afterward that 10 of the 12 jurors had supported finding Mr. Menendez not guilty.

In January 2018, prosecutors announced that they intended to retry Mr. Menendez , but less than a week later, Judge Walls acquitted Mr. Menendez and Dr. Melgen of seven of the 18 charges they faced.

The Justice Department dismissed all the remaining charges against the senator a few days later, leaving Mr. Menendez free to return to Congress and begin campaigning for re-election.

Weitzman is describing Menendez’s actions as those of a concerned legislator who had gotten complaints from constituents about unfair treatment. He went to New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal about the state’s investigation into Latino truckers working for Jose Uribe because he worried there was discrimination involved, Weitzman said.

He went to Philip R. Sellinger, the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, about an investigation into Fred Daibes because he was concerned about a conflict of interest: Sellinger was involved personally in a separate lawsuit involving Daibes, Weitzman said. “Bob acted lawfully, appropriately and entirely for the benefit of New Jerseyans,” Weitzman said.

Avi Weitzman, the lawyer for Menendez, has been speaking for about an hour now. He has just turned to the final facet of the government’s case: The charge that Senator Menendez tried to install a favorable U.S. attorney in New Jersey to help protect Fred Daibes in exchange for bribes. Weitzman again says there was no bribe, and that Menendez was merely doing due diligence because he worried one of the candidates for the prosecutor post would not be fair.

Weitzman is now discussing the $60,000 Mercedez-Benz that one of the New Jersey businessmen has confessed to buying Nadine Menendez as a bribe. The lawyer says that the senator initially assumed she had bought it herself.

Judge Stein just gently chastised Weitzman for his presentation: “Stick to the evidence sir, not the sermonizing.”

The defense is deep into the weeds now, underscoring just how tangled aspects of this case are. Weitzman is confirming that Menendez contacted a U.S.D.A. official about a halal meat monopoly run by the Egyptian-American businessman accused of bribing him. But the lawyer says he will present evidence showing that the call was all above board.

If you’re just joining us, Avi Weitzman, the lawyer for Menendez, is giving his opening statement. He is delving into the government’s allegation that Menendez helped Wael Hana, a friend of his wife, get a monopoly on certifying Halal meat imported into Egypt from the United States. But it’s Egyptian officials who decide who gets that business, not a U.S. senator, Weitzman said. “For whatever reason” the Egyptian government chose Hana’s business, Weitzman said.

Weitzman says there is plenty of evidence to contradict the charge that Menendez was acting as a foreign agent. For example, at the same time that he was supposedly taking bribes to help Egyptian officials, Menendez was publicly “taking them to task and he is telling them that they need to do better on human rights,” Weitzman says.

Senator Menendez’s lawyer, Avi Weitzman, is now pivoting. He is explaining to the jury that many of the senator’s actions in the case amount to “constituent services” carried out in the interests of the people of New Jersey. He is preparing to explain that Menendez was simply trying to help some of those constituents — like Daibes and Uribe — right a wrong.

Weitzman adds that there is nothing criminal about helping constituents who are also friends of his or his wife. “You may not like it, but it’s not illegal,” he said.

In Washington, will the Menendez scandal elicit more than a shrug?

Senator Robert Menendez is facing some of the most serious charges ever leveled against a sitting American lawmaker. But as he goes on trial in Manhattan this week, his colleagues back in Washington could hardly seem less interested.

The case briefly upended the Capitol back in September, when Mr. Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, was first indicted in a bribery case accusing him of covertly aiding Egypt and throttling criminal inquiries at home. Dozens of senators called on him to resign.

But after Mr. Menendez brusquely rebuffed them , Democrats and Republicans in the clubby Senate largely moved on. Most have had little to say about the case since, leaving Mr. Menendez free to continue his congressional work as he fights to prove his innocence.

Fellow Democrats have offered explanations. They point out that Mr. Menendez was stripped of his committee chairmanship after the charges, and that he has all but acknowledged his political career is over .

Many — including Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader — have defended Mr. Menendez’s right to clear his name. (The senator was indicted once before but never convicted because of a hung jury; this time, he has pleaded not guilty.)

Perhaps more surprisingly in a capital where partisans are typically eager to weaponize corruption accusations, Republican senators have mostly given a pass to Mr. Menendez, a well-liked deal-maker who has spent three decades in Congress, and to his party.

“I’m really glad he’s not a Republican,” Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the minority leader, said on Wednesday.

The tone could yet ramp up as prosecutors air their case in the coming weeks. But with a war in the Middle East consuming the Senate and former President Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial continuing in New York, there are few signs that senators are eager to talk more about Mr. Menendez — except one.

Senator John Fetterman, Democrat of Pennsylvania, has tried unsuccessfully to persuade the chamber to expel Mr. Menendez and expressed frustration that the New Jersey senator’s colleagues were willing to let him stay.

“I’ll never understand how people were OK with that,” he said.

Mr. Fetterman said he was particularly alarmed by accusations that Mr. Menendez had worked as a foreign agent for Egypt, accepting gold bars and other lucrative payoffs, at the same time he was serving as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He argued that Mr. Menendez deserved his day in court but that the Senate should hold its members to a stricter standard.

“It just gets more and more indefensible why we can’t come together and chuck him,” he said.

For now, Mr. Menendez’s trial will have at least one very tangible impact in the narrowly divided Senate. With Mr. Menendez stuck in a New York courthouse five days a week for the next two months, he will not be able to cast votes or participate in committee hearings.

Weitzman goes back to Menendez’s humble beginnings to explain the presence of the cash found in his house. As the the son of Cuban immigrants who grew up poor in tenement housing in Union City, N.J., Menendez frequently saw his parents storing cash in the house. As an adult, he would do the same, a habit he had for years, Weitzman said. Some of the bills found in the house were not even in circulation anymore, which Weitzman said contradicts the prosecution’s claims that this was cash Menendez got from the other defendants.

Now we are onto the cash. The F.B.I. found more than $400,000 of it when they raided the couple’s home. Menendez’s lawyer says the cash belonged to the senator and was amassed over three decades in $400-$500 increments because of trauma in his past.

In a setback for the senator on this point, Judge Stein issued a ruling yesterday precluding his lawyers from presenting testimony from a psychiatrist who had evaluated Menendez . Her testimony had been expected to address the cash authorities found stockpiled in Menendez’s home.

Menendez, as a sitting senator, had an obligation to reveal all his assets in a financial disclosure form, as well as his spouse’s. When he learned about the gold bars he contacted Senate officials to tell them, Weitzman says. He did this before he even knew there was a federal investigation into him, Weitzman said. “He’s not trying to hide his assets,” he said.

If you are just joining us, Avi Weitzman, a defense lawyer for Senator Menendez, is offering his opening statement. The lawyer has said his client never took bribes or broke the law. He is laying blame for the gold bars that authorities found in the couple’s home on Nadine Menendez, the senator’s wife.

Weitzman, a personable lawyer who is peppering his statement with jokes and details about himself (“I’m a twin”), makes another quip. He asks the jury if they know about “Where’s Waldo?”, the fictional character in the red-and-white hat who hides in large crowds. The prosecution objects. Weitzman continues: the evidence will show that while Nadine Menendez was trying to resolve her financial problems and meeting with Daibes, Hana and Uribe, Menendez was nowhere to be found. “Where’s Bob?” Weitzmann says. “He was doing his job.”

Avi Weitzman, Menendez’s lawyer, is taking aim at another key piece of evidence raised by the prosecution: the senator’s repeated Google searches for the price of gold. He says this was not related to any bribes, but carried out because his wife’s family had long owned a lot of gold, including kilogram gold bars.

Weitzman has now leaned in hard to what is likely to be a central pillar of Menendez’s defense: He was fooled by a beautiful woman. “The evidence will show that Nadine was hiding her financial challenges from Bob,” he said. “She kept him in the dark about what she was asking others to give her.”

Scottie Scheffler's arrest by Louisville police was out of line toward PGA golfer

The misunderstanding could’ve been handled without booking this golfer. i think the officer was inappropriately fired up..

This police officer was entirely out of line. The misunderstanding could’ve been handled without booking this golfer. I think the officer was inappropriately fired up. A similar circumstance happened to me on Bardstown Road one evening as I did not have my headlights turned on. The officer got out banged on my car, dinged it with his bully club and interrogated me like I was a criminal, just because I did stop right in the middle of Bardstown Road. I coasted into the parking lot just to the right of me.

Scheffler’s arrest isn’t surprising. Look at Louisville Metro Police Department’s history.

This is a terrible black eye to Louisville and if I was the PGA of America, I would never have a tournament back in this community. The mayor should investigate this and see if it can be smoothed out.

—Michael Needleman MD, 40241

What do you think of PGA arrest? Submit your letter to the editor here.

I am embarrassed to call Louisville my city

I think the officers were acting like a bunch of thugs. Which now and forever will be a part of history in Louisville. Arresting an American Icon. You could have escorted him to the entry way thru the maze of police cars instead of being Mr. Touch guy. Looked like an unorganized bunch of police cars. Man handling and handcuffing acting like a bunch of mad dogs. I am embarrassed to call Louisville my city, arresting the leader of the golf world, breaking all the records in the world. You should be ashamed.

—Thomas Meredith, 42754

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Lawyer opens defense of US Sen. Bob Menendez in his corruption trial by blaming his wife

For the second time in a decade, Sen. Bob Menendez is finding his political career and freedom on the line in a federal criminal case that has already forced him out of one of the Senate’s most powerful posts. The New Jersey Democrat goes to trial Monday.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Lara Pomerantz gives her opening statement while gesturing to Robert Menendez, far left, as Judge Sidney Stein presides in Manhattan federal court, Wednesday, May 15, 2024, in New York. (Elizabeth Williams via AP)

• Copy Link copied

U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., leaves Manhattan federal court after the second day of jury selection in his trial, Tuesday, May 14, 2024, in New York. The Democrat has pleaded not guilty to bribery, extortion, fraud and obstruction of justice, along with acting as a foreign agent of Egypt. (AP Photo/Stefan Jeremiah)

In this courtroom sketch, U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, seated far left, looks at his defense attorney Avi Weitzman give his opening statement during his trial Wednesday, May 15, 2024, in New York. Judge Sidney Stein is presiding. (Elizabeth Williams via AP)

NEW YORK (AP) — A lawyer for U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez blamed the politician’s wife Wednesday for his legal problems, telling a jury at the start of a corruption trial that the Democrat wasn’t aware his spouse had taken gifts from a trio of businessmen and didn’t know about cash and gold bars hidden in a closet at their New Jersey home.

“She kept him in the dark about what she was asking others to give her,” defense lawyer Avi Weitzman said, portraying it as a desperate search for funds from relatives and friends. “She wasn’t going to let Bob know that she had financial problems.”

Jurors began hearing opening statements Wednesday in a trial in which Menendez is accused of accepting lavish bribes in exchange for a variety of corrupt favors, including taking actions as a senator that benefited the government of Egypt.

U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., leaves Manhattan federal court after the second day of jury selection in his trial, Tuesday, May 14, 2024, in New York. (AP Photo/Stefan Jeremiah)

Prosecutors portrayed Menendez as someone who had betrayed his country.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Lara Pomerantz told the jury the senator’s wife, Nadine Menendez, did play a central role in her husband’s corruption, but said he hid behind her while using her as a conduit to the businessmen who delivered bribes.

“He was careful not to send too many texts,” she said. “He used Nadine as his go-between to deliver messages to and from the people paying bribes.”

Nadine Menendez is charged in the case as well, but her trial has been postponed until at least July because a recently discovered serious medical condition requires surgery. She has pleaded not guilty. The couple began dating in early 2018. They married two years later and moved into her Englewood Cliffs home.

Senator Menendez faces charges of bribery, fraud, extortion, obstruction of justice and acting as a foreign agent of Egypt. The evidence includes gold bars and over $400,000 in cash that the FBI found during a search of the couple’s house, which Pomerantz said was tucked inside “a safe, in jacket pockets, in shoes, all over the house.”

Menendez, 70, quit his powerful post as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after his arrest, but he resisted calls for his resignation. He skipped the Democratic primary but said he might run as an independent this year if he is acquitted.

Sen. Bob Menendez, right, sits with his defense team during jury selection, Tuesday, May 14, 2024, at Manhattan federal court in New York. (Candace E. Eaton via AP)

Menendez has held public office continuously since 1986, serving as a state legislator before 14 years as a U.S. congressman. In 2006, then-Gov. Jon Corzine appointed Menendez to the Senate seat he vacated when he became governor.

In her remarks to the jury, Pomerantz called Menendez a public official “who put his own interests above his duty to the people.”

“This is Robert Menendez, U.S. senator from New Jersey,” Pomerantz said, pointing at him. “And he was entrusted with making big decisions, including decisions that affected this country’s national security. He was also corrupt.”

In return for bribes, Pomerantz said, the senator took official acts to aid Fred Daibes, a New Jersey real estate developer; and two other businessmen: Wael Hana and Jose Uribe. Daibes and Hana, who are on trial with Menendez, have pleaded not guilty. Their lawyers will deliver opening statements Thursday. Uribe recently pleaded guilty and is expected to testify.

Pomerantz said Menendez also tried to corrupt the U.S. justice system by using his influence to push to nominate a federal prosecutor in New Jersey who might protect Daibes from a criminal prosecution.

“This was not politics as usual,” she told the jury. “This was politics for profit, a U.S. senator on the take. ... Menendez put his power up for sale. And Hana and Daibes were more than happy to buy from him.”

Pomerantz said Daibes, in part, delivered gold bars and cash to Menendez and his wife to get the senator to help him secure a multimillion-dollar deal with a Qatari investment fund by acting in ways favorable to Qatar’s government.

She also said Menendez did things benefiting Egyptian officials in exchange for bribes from Hana as the businessman secured a lucrative deal with the Egyptian government to certify that imported meat met Islamic dietary requirements, even though he had no experience in the business.

The defense lawyer, Weitzman, called Menendez “an American patriot” and prosecutors “dead wrong.”

He said Menendez “took no bribes and did not accept any cash, or gold, or a car.”

“He was never and is not a foreign agent of the government of Egypt. He did not violate the law, period,” Weitzman said.

Weitzman said there was nothing unusual or wrong about Menendez’s dealings with Egypt and Qatar because senators must engage in diplomacy and help constituents. He noted that Menendez was tough on Egypt, including its president, over its human rights record.

While prosecutors say the three businessmen showered Menendez and his wife with gifts, Weitzman told the jury Daibes’ fingerprint was found on only one of hundreds of envelopes belonging to the senator, and was not surprising given the decades that Menendez had known him. All the rest of the fingerprints, he added, were found on envelopes of cash belonging to Nadine Menendez.

“You will not see any fingerprints and any DNA on the senator’s cash. Every fingerprint and DNA was found in his wife’s closet or in her safe deposit box at a bank,” Weitzman said.

The lawyer said the gold bars were in the home because of a “cultural” practice by Nadine Menendez, who was raised in a family from Lebanon that kept gold for financial safety and to give as gifts.

Weitzman also said that the senator’s family, which fled Cuba before he was born, had lost its life savings except for cash hidden in their home. As a result, he said, Menendez had been storing hundreds of dollars in cash a week for decades to store at home, keeping much of it in bags in the home’s basement.

After the jury went home, the defense requested a mistrial, claiming the government went too far in its opening statement. The judge denied it.

The trial represents the second time Menendez has been criminally charged in a federal court in the last decade.

In 2017, a federal jury deadlocked on corruption charges brought in New Jersey, and prosecutors did not seek to retry him.