The “appearance” standard is central to the federal approach. The media often apply it, irrespective of a jurisdiction’s formal principles; appearance is not a universally adopted and legally enforceable norm. COGEL’s draft model statute adopts it, as do many professional codes, including the American Bar Association’s well-known Canon 9. Common Cause’s and the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers’ codes do not. Los Angeles, Chicago, and Buffalo expressly require avoiding the appearance of impropriety.
The irony is that an appearance of impropriety can be as damaging as an actual conflict of interest. Appearances potentially undermine the confidence of citizens in democratic institutions. Many public servants, as well as elected officials, will argue that such standards are unfair. Former California Senator Alan Cranston, who was reprimanded in the savings-and-loan scandals of the 1980s, claimed that no one knew what was in his heart, and he was the only one who could judge his actions. Taking exception to this, Dennis Thompson notes, “Because appearances are often the only window that citizens have on official conduct, rejecting the appearance standard is tantamount to denying democratic accountability”.