Global Integrity Report

United States Home

Facts

Timeline

Notebook

Integrity Scorecard

2007 Assessment

United States: Integrity Indicators Scorecard

United States: Integrity Scorecard Report > Sub-Category: Civil Society Organizations
Indicators		Score
1	Are anti-corruption/good governance CSOs legally protected?	67
2	Are good governance/anti-corruption CSOs able to operate freely?	92
3	Are civil society activists safe when working on corruption issues?	100
4	Can citizens organize into trade unions?	88

Indicator and sub-Indicator Details

Are anti-corruption/good governance CSOs legally protected?

1a: In law, citizens have a right to form civil society organizations (CSOs) focused on anti-corruption or good governance.

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right of association generally, stating: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

1b: In law, anti-corruption/good governance CSOs are free to accept funding from any foreign or domestic sources.

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: While some CSOs with Middle East ties claim post-9/11 security concerns have unfairly restricted their ability to raise money from domestic and foreign sources, these CSOs do not generally focus on anti-corruption/good governance issues. See, for example, "Muslim Charities Say Fear Is Damming Flow of Money," Washington Post, August 9, 2006, p. A3.

Peer Review Comments: Citation to terrorist financing laws may be useful.

1c: In law, anti-corruption/good governance CSOs are required to disclose their sources of funding.

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: The U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) typically classifies anti-corruption CSOs as non-profit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations. The IRS states: A tax-exempt organization is generally not required to disclose the names or addresses of its contributors on its annual [tax] return. [ LINK ]. However, 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in the amount of political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For example, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. [ LINK ]

Are good governance/anti-corruption CSOs able to operate freely?

2a: In practice, the government does not create barriers to the organization of new anti-corruption/good governance CSOs.

Score:

100

Comments:

References: According to Transparency International USA's president Nancy Boswell: "In the USA, there is a climate that allows civil society to thrive and be powerful watchdogs promoting government accountability. They are permitted to organize, speak freely and participate in political decision-making. However, maintaining government integrity is a constant challenge and there are thousands of NGOs working on various aspects of this problem. [The] most recent examples are their efforts to fight attempts to restrict access to information and to address corruption in political finance and in the legislature." U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Bureau of International Information Programs, "The Role of NGOs in Battling Corruption" February 8, 2007, [ LINK ]

In 2007, there were no media reports of anti-corruption NGOs being prevented from organizing. [Lexis-Nexis search]

2b: In practice, anti-corruption/good governance CSOs actively engage in the political and policymaking process.

Score:

100

Comments: As the Boswell quote above indicates, there is a healthy civil society in the U.S. However, only a few, well-funded anti-corruption CSOs operate at the national level (The Center for Public Integrity among them). And while their investigations and advocacy efforts receive media attention from time to time, the impact of these efforts is largely muted in the long run as these efforts clash with the goals of extremely well-funded lobbyists and their corporate clients. And while recent improvements in transparency and ethics rules in Congress likely can be tied to the work of Democracy 21, Common Cause and others, the positive results have been more more likely due to well-publicized congressional scandals in which criminal charges led to the ouster of powerful members of Congress. This view was confirmed in an August 16 interview with Common Cause's Communication Director Mary Boyle. While Boyle likes to think CSOs play a "central role" in ethics reform, she admitted that "more often than not they don't listen to us" and that it requires scandals to initiate real reform. She did mention, however, that Common Cause and other corruption CSOs work behind the scenes on the details of reform (e.g, the House task force currently deciding on whether to establish an independent ethics body). See also: "Ethics bill leaves some waiting for next step," Gannett News Service, August 8, 2007.

References: An example of CSO participation in the political process can be found here: REPEALING LIMITS ON PARTY SPENDING FOR CANDIDATES, TESTIMONY-BY: FRED WERTHEIMER, PRESIDENT OF DEMOCRACY 21, US Senate Committee on Senate Rules and Administration, April 18, 2007

Peer Review Comments: Everything the lead researcher writes is accurate. But I would say that civil society organizations like Common Cause and Democracy 21 have a 100 percent ability to actively engage, even if they have less than full success in being heard and achieving their goals.

Common Cause Communication Director Mary Boyle's comment about working behind the scenes on congressional reform seems to indicate full engagement in the process. I admit this is nitpicking, and perhaps the small number of CSOs like CC and D21, in comparison to the large number of corporate and other lobbyists, puts this back to 75.

2c: In practice, no anti-corruption/good governance CSOs have been shut down by the government for their work on corruption-related issues during the study period.

Score:

YES

$Scoring Criteria :: YES: A YES score is earned is there were no CSOs shut down by the government or forced to cease operations because of their work on corruption-related issues during the study period. NO: A NO score is earned if any CSO has been effectively shut down by the government or forced to cease operations because of its work on corruption-related issues during the study period. The causal relationship between the cessation of operations and the CSO\'s work may not be explicit, however the burden of proof here is low. If it seems likely that the CSO was forced to cease operations due to its work, then the indicator is scored as a NO. Corruption is defined broadly to include any abuses of power, not just the passing of bribes.$

Comments: Most Americans citizens cherish the right for organizations to criticize the government, so closing down an anti-corruption CSO would be a very unwise strategy for government officials. Instead, they merely need to pretend they will clean up their act and then wait a sufficient amount of time for the concerns to die down (and hope they aren't voted out of office).

References: No media reports of such cases. [Lexis-Nexis search]

Are civil society activists safe when working on corruption issues?

3a: In practice, in the past year, no civil society activists working on corruption issues have been imprisoned.

Score:

YES

$Scoring Criteria :: YES: A YES score is earned if there were no CSO activists imprisoned because of their work covering corruption. YES is a positive score. NO: A NO score is earned if any activist was jailed in relation to work covering corruption. The causal relationship between the official charges and the person\'s work may not be explicit, however the burden of proof here is low. If it seems likely that the person was imprisoned due to his or her work, then the indicator is scored as a NO. Corruption is defined broadly to include any abuses of power, not just the passing of bribes.$

Comments:

References: In 2007, there were no media reports of civil society activists working on corruption issues being imprisoned.

Peer Review Comments: Not sure if you want to get into how some advocacy groups and "independent" activists have been fined and detained in anti-war protests. There is a tradition or practice by activists in the United States of purposefully violating some administrative and even criminal laws to draw attention to their causes. But, they do so knowingly and with an affirmative assumption of the risk.

3b: In practice, in the past year, no civil society activists working on corruption issues have been physically harmed.

Score:

YES

$Scoring Criteria :: YES: A YES score is earned if there were no documented cases of CSO activists covering corruption being assaulted in the specific study period. A YES score can be earned if there was an attack but it was clearly unrelated to the activist\'s work. YES is a positive score. NO: A NO score is earned if there were any documented cases during the study period of assault to an activist who covers corruption. Corruption is defined broadly to include any abuses of power, not just the passing of bribes.$

Comments:

References: In 2007, there were no media reports of civil society activists working on corruption issues being physically harmed.

3c: In practice, in the past year, no civil society activists working on corruption issues have been killed.

Score:

YES

$Scoring Criteria :: YES: A YES score is earned if there were no documented cases of CSO activists being killed because of their work covering corruption in the specific study period. YES is a positive score. NO: A NO score is earned if there were any documented cases during the study period where a person was killed related to a corruption trial, scandal or investigation. The relationship between a mysterious death and an individual\'s history may not be clear, however the burden of proof here is low. If it is reasonable that a person was killed in relation to his or her work on corruption issues, then the indicator is scored as a NO. Corruption is defined broadly to include any abuses of power, not just the passing of bribes.$

Comments:

References: In 2007, there were no media reports of civil society activists working on corruption issues being killed.

Can citizens organize into trade unions?

4a: In law, citizens have a right to organize into trade unions.

Score:

YES

Comments:

References: National Labor Relations Act of 1935 and the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 guarantee the right of employees to organize and to bargain collectively with their employers or to refrain from all such activity. [ LINK ]

Peer Review Comments: Other sources of law you may want to look at include Supreme Court cases on trade union and labor issues.

4b: In practice, citizens are able to organize into trade unions.

Score:

100

Comments:

References: "U.S. trade unions have seen a steady decline in their influence. While corporate opponents of unions say this decline is due to larger economic trends related to globalization and a move to a service-oriented economy, unions and academics believe this decline is the result of concerted "union busting" efforts by corporations. See: Kris Maher, "Signs of a Possible Power Shift In Congress Have Unions Going All Out to Reach Voters," "Wall Street Journal, August 28, 2006; p. A2; and Shaan K. Hathiramani and Amanda Shapiro, "Busting the Busters," Harvard Political Review, August 8, 2006."