This is a “worst of” list, but it’s not vibe-based. Each entry below is anchored in documented outcomes like criminal convictions, expulsions, resignations under severe official scrutiny, or major ethics actions. It is not a complete list of every scandal, and it is not a claim that any one person is uniquely “the worst” in history. It’s a curated, documented set of high-impact cases.
Quick Scoring Rubric
If you want to rank these cases yourself, score each category from 1–5, then total them (max 10).
- Scale (1–5): scope of conduct (money involved, number of victims, duration, breadth of schemes)
- Institutional damage (1–5): harm to public trust, governance, oversight integrity, or national security
1) Dennis Hastert (R-IL), U.S. House (1987–2007)
Case summary: Hastert rose to the highest leadership post in the House, then later pleaded guilty in a case tied to paying hush money for past sexual misconduct. The criminal case centered on structuring bank withdrawals to avoid reporting requirements, which brought hidden allegations into public view. Even though some underlying conduct was beyond the criminal statute of limitations, the case produced a historic collapse of public trust in a former Speaker. It also spotlighted how financial crimes can expose older abuse claims that otherwise might never be adjudicated in court.
What changed after this?
- Stronger expectations for leadership vetting and internal crisis protocols, including independent counsel and clearer reporting chains.
- More public scrutiny of how NDAs and hush payments can conceal abuse allegations for years.
- Sources:Biographical Directory (service), DOJ (background on federal process)
2) Anthony Weiner (D-NY), U.S. House (1999–2011)
Case summary: Weiner resigned after repeated sexting scandals, and later faced criminal consequences related to communications with a minor. The public and political fallout was immediate, with resignations, campaign collapse, and long-term reputational damage. The case became a cautionary example of how personal misconduct can intersect with digital evidence trails and law enforcement. It also reinforced that “private” behavior can carry direct institutional consequences when it involves abuse or exploitation.
What changed after this?
- More rigorous campaign and staff digital conduct policies, especially around personal devices and communications.
- Increased emphasis on safeguarding standards and reporting mechanisms in political organizations.
- Sources:Biographical Directory (service)
3) Mel Reynolds (D-IL), U.S. House (1993–1995)
Case summary: Reynolds entered Congress, then resigned after serious criminal convictions tied to sexual misconduct and later other offenses. The case underscored the gap between electoral success and personal fitness for public office, especially where victims and coercion are involved. It also serves as a historical reminder that some reputational collapses are not “gaffes,” they are criminal acts with lasting harm. The resignation triggered a special election and years of public attention.
What changed after this?
- Renewed calls for stronger screening and accountability pathways when allegations involve abuse or exploitation.
- Greater media and voter focus on credible misconduct reporting even mid-term.
- Sources:Biographical Directory (service), House History (bio + timeline)
4) Bob Packwood (R-OR), U.S. Senate (1969–1995)
Case summary: Packwood resigned after an extended ethics saga involving sexual misconduct allegations and documented attempts to interfere with the investigation. The episode became a landmark Senate ethics story because it was not just about alleged behavior, it was about obstruction and institutional credibility. The case dragged on for years, consuming Senate resources and attention while eroding trust in oversight. His resignation marked a rare and consequential end to a long Senate career.
What changed after this?
- Added pressure for clearer Senate ethics processes and greater transparency when oversight becomes prolonged.
- Raised expectations that interference with investigations is a separate, aggravating offense in public opinion, even when underlying claims are disputed.
- Sources:Biographical Directory (service)
5) Bob Menendez (D-NJ), U.S. House (1993–2006), U.S. Senate (2006–2024)
Case summary: Menendez was convicted in a major federal corruption case involving bribery-related conduct, foreign-agent allegations, and obstruction offenses, one of the most serious modern Senate corruption outcomes. On January 29, 2025, he was sentenced to 11 years in prison, and reporting indicates he began serving the sentence in June 2025. Beyond federal punishment, New Jersey moved to permanently bar him from seeking or holding public office in the state, reinforcing the long-term consequences beyond incarceration. The case illustrates how corruption investigations can expand from ethics questions into sweeping criminal exposure with lasting civic fallout.
What changed after this?
- Sharper scrutiny of foreign-influence risks, especially for senior national security and foreign policy roles.
- More attention to state-level “disqualification” tools that extend consequences beyond federal sentencing.
- Sources: DOJ (sentencing, Jan 29, 2025), PBS (began serving sentence, June 2025), NJ Attorney General (Dec 5, 2025 disqualification), Biographical Directory (service)
6) Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA), U.S. House (1991–2005)
Case summary: Cunningham pleaded guilty in a corruption case tied to bribes and influence, a scandal that became shorthand for blatant pay-to-play. The case featured lavish gifts and a money trail that made it unusually vivid and easy for the public to understand. His resignation and prison sentence helped set a modern baseline for how aggressively federal prosecutors and the public respond to clear bribery evidence. It also intensified the appetite for stronger oversight around earmarks and contractor influence.
What changed after this?
- More attention to contractor relationships, disclosure expectations, and the optics of gifts and travel.
- Fuel for broader “culture of corruption” framing and greater investigative journalism focus on earmarks and influence.
- Sources:House History (bio + service), Biographical Directory (service)
7) Chaka Fattah (D-PA), U.S. House (1995–2016)
Case summary: Fattah’s career collapsed under a sweeping federal corruption case tied to misuse of funds and other wrongdoing. The conduct spanned political fundraising and personal benefit, with the kind of “many parts moving at once” complexity that often characterizes major public corruption prosecutions. The result was a high-profile conviction and a long prison sentence that ended a long tenure. It became a prominent modern reminder that congressional longevity does not insulate against federal prosecution.
What changed after this?
- More caution around campaign finance compliance and the separation between political committees and personal benefit.
- Sharper donor and press scrutiny around “payback” structures and affiliated organizations.
- Sources:House History (bio + service)
8) William J. Jefferson (D-LA), U.S. House (1991–2009)
Case summary: Jefferson became a national symbol of corruption for the sheer memorability of cash tied to bribery allegations. The case combined a powerful narrative hook with serious criminal outcomes, making it one of the most widely recognized House corruption stories of the modern era. The scandal damaged public trust in governance and reinforced cynicism around “access for sale.” It also intensified calls for aggressive enforcement around bribery and disclosure.
What changed after this?
- Greater visibility and scrutiny of member travel, fundraising, and private business interactions.
- More public pressure for ethics reforms and stronger investigative capacity.
- Sources:House History (bio + service)
9) Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-IL), U.S. House (1995–2012)
Case summary: Jackson Jr. resigned and was later convicted for conduct tied to misuse of funds and false statements, ending a long run in the House. The case stood out because the public often sees campaign money as “politics,” but the law treats misappropriation as corruption. The downfall was rapid once legal jeopardy became unavoidable, and it created a stark contrast between public-profile politics and compliance reality. It remains a widely cited example of how financial misconduct can terminate a congressional career.
What changed after this?
- More insistence on tighter campaign finance controls, audits, and internal compliance teams.
- Higher expectations for candidates to demonstrate financial governance maturity, not just messaging skill.
- Sources:House History (bio + service dates)
10) Rick Renzi (R-AZ), U.S. House (2003–2009)
Case summary: Renzi was convicted on multiple serious offenses in a case involving corruption-related conduct, ending his congressional career and driving long-term reputational harm. The case reinforced that federal corruption prosecutions often focus on patterns, not single events, especially when financial transactions are central. His later pardon added another layer of political controversy, but it did not erase public memory of the conviction. The overall arc reads as a full career reversal: election, scandal, conviction, and political aftershocks.
What changed after this?
- More public demand for clarity around pardon power and how it intersects with public-corruption deterrence.
- More caution around real-estate and financial entanglements for sitting members.
- Sources:House History (bio + service)
11) Bob Ney (R-OH), U.S. House (1995–2006)
Case summary: Ney resigned in the fallout of the Abramoff lobbying scandal and was convicted of serious offenses tied to corruption and false statements. The story became emblematic of how lobbying influence can mutate into criminal exposure, especially when gifts and favors are involved. The case damaged institutional credibility because it connected moneyed access to legislative behavior in a way the public could easily grasp. It remains one of the most cited modern examples of the legal line between lobbying and bribery.
What changed after this?
- More aggressive reputational policing around lobbyist gifts, travel, and member-staff relationships.
- Added fuel for reforms emphasizing transparency in influence operations and outside-funded perks.
- Sources:House History (bio + service)
12) Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL), U.S. House (1959–1995)
Case summary: Rostenkowski was one of the most powerful tax-policy figures in Congress, then was convicted of federal offenses that sent shockwaves through institutional leadership culture. The case mattered because it showed that even peak influence and seniority do not shield against criminal accountability. It also reinforced that internal congressional perks and administrative privileges can become prosecutorial targets when abused. The later pardon did not erase the institutional rupture created by the conviction.
What changed after this?
- More scrutiny of “perks infrastructure” and administrative spending tied to congressional offices.
- Greater sensitivity around leadership ethics, because leadership scandals carry broader reputational blast radius.
- Sources:House History (bio + service)
13) Michael “Ozzie” Myers (D-PA), U.S. House (1976–1980)
Case summary: Myers was expelled from the House after the Abscam sting, one of the most notorious corruption operations in congressional history. The case was visually and narratively devastating because it involved undercover operations capturing bribery conduct in a way the public could readily understand. Expulsion is rare, and his removal signaled that some misconduct crosses a line where the institution must protect itself. Abscam became a permanent reference point for congressional corruption stories.
What changed after this?
- Abscam helped cement the legitimacy of aggressive anti-corruption tactics and raised public expectations for consequences.
- Greater institutional willingness to consider expulsion when evidence is overwhelming and public trust is collapsing.
- Sources:House History (bio + expulsion)
14) John Jenrette (D-SC), U.S. House (1975–1980)
Case summary: Jenrette was another Abscam-era figure whose conviction and resignation highlighted how bribery can be operationalized through covert “access” offers. The case became infamous for how plainly it suggested corruption could be negotiated like a transaction. His downfall reinforced that criminal exposure can escalate quickly once law enforcement has recordings and corroboration. Abscam cases like this still shape how the public imagines congressional bribery.
What changed after this?
- Made “sting-captured corruption” a permanent part of the U.S. political scandal playbook.
- Reinforced that resignation is not a substitute for accountability when criminal convictions follow.
- Sources:House History (bio + resignation)
15) Harrison A. Williams (D-NJ), U.S. House (1953–1957), U.S. Senate (1959–1982)
Case summary: Williams was convicted in connection with Abscam, producing one of the most significant Senate corruption outcomes of the era. The case mattered because it connected influence, bribery, and official action at a high level, reinforcing public suspicion that access could be bought. It also demonstrated that criminal conviction can override political stature, seniority, and alliances. The scandal left a deep reputational imprint on Senate ethics discourse for decades.
What changed after this?
- More sustained pressure for ethics modernization and transparency around outside influence.
- Strengthened deterrence narrative: high office does not immunize members from prosecution.
- Sources:Biographical Directory (service)
16) Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA), U.S. House (2009–2019)
Case summary: Hunter pleaded guilty to misusing campaign funds and resigned, turning a modern campaign-finance scandal into a personal downfall story. The case resonated because it reflected a common public frustration: donors give money for civic aims, not personal expenses. The conviction reinforced that “campaign money is not your wallet,” and prosecutors will treat it that way. A later pardon added political controversy, but the guilty plea and resignation remain central facts.
What changed after this?
- More aggressive internal campaign controls, audit trails, and third-party compliance checks.
- Raised public skepticism about how campaign committees are run behind the scenes.
- Sources:Congress.gov (service)
17) Chris Collins (R-NY), U.S. House (2013–2019)
Case summary: Collins resigned and was convicted in a high-profile insider trading case, turning a classic financial crime into a political ethics story. The scandal was especially damaging because it connected congressional status and access to non-public information with personal gain. It reinforced the public’s suspicion that some lawmakers may treat office as a wealth advantage rather than a civic trust. A subsequent pardon did not change the broader institutional lesson about appearance and conduct.
What changed after this?
- More pressure for clearer enforcement of trading-related norms and stronger “optics guardrails” for members.
- Ongoing fuel for calls to restrict or ban stock trading by members of Congress.
- Sources:House History (bio + resignation)
18) Michael Grimm (R-NY), U.S. House (2011–2015)
Case summary: Grimm’s tenure ended after criminal legal trouble that culminated in resignation, a sharp example of how quickly a member can lose credibility when prosecuted. Even when constituents may support a member’s politics, criminal exposure often collapses coalition support, fundraising, and institutional patience. The case is a reminder that congressional service is fragile under federal prosecution, regardless of district lean. It also reinforced the reputational risk of members attempting to “fight it out” publicly while facing serious charges.
What changed after this?
- More caution by party committees and leadership about member liabilities becoming election-wide distractions.
- Greater media focus on “resignation timing” as a political strategy in criminal cases.
- Sources:Congress.gov (service)
19) James Traficant (D-OH), U.S. House (1985–2002)
Case summary: Traficant was expelled from the House after a federal conviction, making him one of the most prominent modern examples of the institution taking the extraordinary step of removing a sitting member. The case underscored that criminal conviction can override even a strong personal brand and unusual political style. Expulsion is rare, and it carries a uniquely institutional signal: the body is protecting its legitimacy. The scandal remains a recurring reference point in debates about standards for removal.
What changed after this?
- Reinforced that expulsion is a live tool when a member’s criminal conviction becomes incompatible with service.
- Strengthened the norm that severe criminal outcomes can trigger immediate institutional action, not just electoral consequences.
- Sources:Background overview (service + expulsion)
20) George Santos (R-NY), U.S. House (2023)
Case summary: Santos’s time in Congress was short, chaotic, and historically consequential: he was expelled after a cascade of fabrications and investigations, and later faced federal criminal sentencing. On April 25, 2025, he was sentenced to 87 months in prison for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, with restitution ordered at $373,749.97 and forfeiture at $205,002.97. He reported to prison in July 2025, but on October 17, 2025, President Trump commuted his prison sentence and ordered his immediate release. The conviction itself still stands, meaning the legal and reputational consequences did not disappear, but the commutation substantially changed the “time served” reality.
What changed after this?
- Increased pressure for tighter candidate verification (employment, education, finances) before nominations and major funding support.
- Made expulsion a more “real” modern threat again, as a tool for reputational containment.
- Renewed debate over clemency power and how it intersects with public-corruption deterrence.
- Sources:DOJ (sentencing + restitution/forfeiture, Apr 25, 2025), Reuters (commutation, Oct 17, 2025), PBS (commutation coverage)
FAQ
How did you choose who makes this list?
This list prioritizes lawmakers with criminal convictions, expulsions, major ethics findings, or other official actions that are widely documented in high-quality sources. It does not attempt to capture every scandal in congressional history.
Is this list partisan?
No. Cases are included based on documented outcomes and institutional impact, not party. Both Democrats and Republicans appear because official actions and convictions span parties.
Why include pardons or commutations?
Because they change the real-world outcome. A pardon or commutation may not erase the public record or the underlying conduct, but it often changes penalties, time served, and how the aftermath is understood.