Political patronage is the appointment or hiring of a person to a government post on the basis of partisan loyalty. Elected officials at the national, state, and local levels of government use such appointments to reward the people who help them win and maintain office. This practice led to the saying, “to the victor go the spoils.” When politicians use the patronage system to fire their political opponents, those fired may charge that the practice penalizes them for exercising their First Amendment rights of political association. As the seventh president of the United States, Democrat Andrew Jackson (1829–1837) sought to bring the government closer to the people and make it more representative. During this era of reform and “Jacksonian Democracy,” the spoils system flourished by using political patronage to reward jobs to the partisan faithful. Jackson argued that any government that aspires truly to serve the people will appoint and rotate its staff rather than create a permanent bureaucracy in which civil servants view their positions as property. This practice became the norm for several decades. (Image via Wikimedia Commons, 1824, public domain)
Political patronage is the appointment or hiring of a person to a government post on the basis of partisan loyalty. Elected officials at the national, state, and local levels of government use such appointments to reward the people who help them win and maintain office. This practice led to the saying, “to the victor go the spoils.” When politicians use the patronage system to fire their political opponents, those fired may charge that the practice penalizes them for exercising their First Amendment rights of political association.
Political patronage has long history in United States
Political patronage has existed since the founding of the United States. In Article 2, the Constitution delegates powers of appointment to the president; this allows the chief executive to appoint a vast number of U.S. officials, including judges, ambassadors, cabinet officers and agency heads, military officers, and other high-ranking members of government. The president’s appointment powers are checked by the Senate’s confirmation powers. This system is paralleled in many state constitutions and local charters.
Proponents of the system argued that political patronage promoted direct accountability from administrators to elected officials. They also perceived it as a means for diminishing elitism at all levels of government by allowing commoners to occupy key posts. Early presidents used patronage extensively.
As the seventh president of the United States, Democrat Andrew Jackson (1829–1837) sought to bring the government closer to the people and make it more representative. During this era of reform and “Jacksonian Democracy,” the spoils system flourished by using political patronage to reward jobs to the partisan faithful. Jackson argued that any government that aspires truly to serve the people will appoint and rotate its staff rather than create a permanent bureaucracy in which civil servants view their positions as property. This practice became the norm for several decades.
Political machines emerged in cities
The spoils system pervaded all levels of government, but in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it was particularly evident at the local level, where political machines emerged in many cities. These machines became the vehicle by which a political leader, often known as a “boss,” dominated government and politics by building a community of supporters. Tammany Hall of New York served as a prime example of such a machine. Prominent mayors Frank Hague of Jersey City, James Michael Curley of Boston, and Richard Daley of Chicago qualified as bosses who dominated politics in their locales. While political patronage worked well in some respects, it quickly became associated with corruption. Moreover, individuals appointed to patronage positions depended on the will of those who hired them, making them unlikely to speak freely and criticize their bosses.
System is now merit-based
Widespread government corruption, the slowing rate of immigration, and the rise of middle-class America contributed to the gradual demise of the spoils system. Late in the nineteenth century, concern grew that jobs were being sold and bartered to the highest bidders. Numerous government scandals and reports of inefficiency eroded public confidence. The issue became particularly poignant when the nation’s twentieth president, James A. Garfield, was shot and killed in 1881, just months after taking office, by a disgruntled job seeker. This fueled reform and led to the Pendleton Act of 1883, which shifted the appointment process to a merit-based system that emphasized recruitment through competitive exams and promotion based upon competence rather that partisan identification. Initially, only ten percent of federal employees were covered by the new system, which was overseen by the Civil Service Commission (CSC). That has changed quite dramatically over time. After the enactment of the Civil Service Reform Act, signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1978, more than 90 percent of federal employees were covered by the civil service or other type of merit-based system.
Court has imposed First Amendment limitations on political patronage
In order to further impartiality, civil service employees are covered by laws—most notably the Hatch Act of 1939— that limit their participation in partisan politics. The Supreme Court has fairly consistently upheld limits on the political activity of government employees since its decision in Ex parte Curtis (1882).
The Supreme Court imposed First Amendment limitations on patronage in a series of decisions beginning in 1976. In Elrod v. Burns (1976), the Court prohibited a newly elected Democratic sheriff from firing non–civil service Republican employees.The Court reasoned that patronage dismissals infringe on core First Amendment political expression and association rights. The Court extended this rationale in Branti v. Finkel (1980) and Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois (1990).
There has been an incremental and gradual movement towards the merit-based system. Political patronage still exists at all levels of government today but is much less prevalent than in previous eras. For example, presidents now appoint fewer than 1 percent of all federal positions. However, appointments continue to be an important means by which presidents reward their supporters, build strength within their respective parties, and create a working relationship with members of Congress.
This article was originally published in 2009. Daniel Baracskay teaches in the public administration program at Valdosta State University.
Send Feedback on this article
If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.
If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.
"The Spoils System" was the name given to the practice of hiring and firing federal workers when presidential administrations changed in the 19th century. It is also known as the patronage system.
The practice began during the administration of President Andrew Jackson, who took office in March 1829. Jackson supporters portrayed it as a necessary and overdue effort at reforming the federal government.
Jackson's political opponents had a very different interpretation, as they considered his method to be a corrupt use of political patronage. And the term Spoils System was intended to be a derogatory nickname.
The phrase came from a speech by Senator William L. Marcy of New York. While defending the actions of the Jackson administration in a speech in the U.S. Senate, Marcy famously said, "to the victor belong the spoils."
When Andrew Jackson took office in March 1829, after the bruising election of 1828, he was determined to change the way the federal government operated. And, as might be expected, he ran into considerable opposition.
Jackson was by nature very suspicious of his political opponents. As he took office he was still quite angry at his predecessor, John Quincy Adams. The way Jackson saw things, the federal government was full of people who were opposed to him.
When Jackson felt that some of his initiatives were being blocked, he became incensed. His solution was to come up with an official program to remove people from federal jobs and replace them with employees considered loyal to his administration.
Other administrations going back to that of George Washington had hired loyalists, of course, but under Jackson, the purging of people thought to be political opponents became official policy.
To Jackson and his supporters, it was a welcome change. Stories were circulated claiming that elderly men who were no longer able to perform their jobs were still filling positions to which they had been appointed by George Washington nearly 40 years earlier.
Jackson's policy of replacing federal employees was bitterly denounced by his political opponents. But they were essentially powerless to fight against it.
Jackson's political ally (and future president) Martin Van Buren was at times credited with having created the new policy, as his New York political machine, known as the Albany Regency, had operated in a similar fashion.
Published reports in the 19th century claimed that Jackson's policy accounted for nearly 700 government officers losing their jobs in 1829, the first year of his presidency. In July 1829, a newspaper report claiming the mass firings of federal employees actually affected the economy of the city of Washington, with merchants unable to sell goods.
That may have been exaggerated, but there is no doubt that Jackson's policy was controversial.
In January 1832 Jackson's perennial enemy, Henry Clay, became involved. He assailed Senator Marcy of New York in a Senate debate, accusing the loyal Jacksonian of bringing corrupt practices from the New York political machine to Washington.
In his exasperated retort to Clay, Marcy defended the Albany Regency, declaring: "They see nothing wrong in the rule that to the victor belong the spoils."
The phrase was widely quoted, and it became notorious. Jackson's opponents cited it often as an example of blatant corruption that rewarded political supporters with federal jobs.
Presidents who took office after Jackson all followed the practice of doling out federal jobs to political supporters. There are many stories, for instance, of President Abraham Lincoln, at the height of the Civil War, being endlessly annoyed by officer-seekers who would come to the White House to plead for jobs.
The Spoils System was criticized for decades, but what ultimately led to its reform was a shockingly violent act in the summer of 1881, the shooting of President James Garfield by a disappointed and deranged office seeker. Garfield died on September 19, 1881, 11 weeks after being shot by Charles Guiteau at a Washington, D.C. train station.
The shooting of President Garfield helped inspire the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which created civil servants, federal workers who were not hired or fired as a result of politics.
Senator Marcy of New York, whose retort to Henry Clay gave the Spoils System its name, was unfairly vilified, according to his political supporters. Marcy did not intend his comment to be an arrogant defense of corrupt practices, which is how it has often been portrayed.
Incidentally, Marcy had been a hero in the War of 1812 and served as governor of New York for 12 years after briefly serving in the U.S. Senate. He later served as the secretary of war under President James K. Polk. Marcy later helped negotiate the Gadsden Purchase while serving as secretary of state under President Franklin Pierce. Mount Marcy, the highest point in New York State, is named for him.
Yet, despite a long and distinguished government career, William Marcy is best remembered for inadvertently giving the Spoils System its notorious name.