I would love to believe that would make a difference, but in a hyperpartisan world where many vote based on a handful of ideological allegiances, how many would seriously be moved to change sides over something as small as a little corruption? Or is this something that would be more at the primary level, where it really is more about personality and personal qualities than party?

In any case, the Trump movement's whole response to this kind of thing was a combination of denial and "lol everyone does it", and it seems like that was enough for many in that camp.

There are still voters on the fence / differences in voter turn-out that mean politicians worry about scandal. The main effect is that these politicians will probably be replaced by different ones from the same party. Moreover, other politicians, hoping not to be replaced, might stop doing blatant insider trading.

Or is this something that would be more at the primary level, where it really is more about personality and personal qualities than party?

>> For sure there are many factors that influence someone's vote. I think you're right - its more likely to cause leadership rotation within the parties where the rest of the factors are more similar (i.e. stance on gun rights, etc.). The challenge today is that incumbent politicians within their own party tend to have great name recognition among voters - but are more likely to be in the pockets of corporations. This would enable challengers within the party to potentially have an issue they can highlight.

"lol everyone does it"

>> And perhaps articles prove in a data science-y way that perhaps this is true - many politicians are doing it.