The idea that more transparency in government is always an unalloyed good is a dangerous populist illusion.
Francis Fukuyama 2015
The Limits of Transparency

Below, On the left, we list the seven principal myths used to support the notion that legislative transparency improves democracy. Clicking through brings up a discussion of each of these myths showing how they work in reality. And in each case, we make a claim (based on the evidence) that runs contrary to the myth. For more on the specifics of the unintended consequences of the early 1970s transparency reforms check here or the papers and videos on this site.

How could anyone be against transparency? Its virtues and its utilities seem so crushingly obvious.
Lawrence Lessig 2009
New Republic

Countless scholars, members of Congress, and human rights organizations proclaim that transparency is a principle tool for improving democracy. On their website, USAID reiterates this notion boldly: “The process of governing is most legitimate when it incorporates democratic principles such as transparency...and accountability.”

The logic seems unassailable: increased transparency enables precise interaction between government and the people. Thus, the more information that is delivered to the voters, the better they can monitor and engage in the legislative process. Celebrated scholars like Martin Gilens, Norm Eisen, Archon Fung and Paul Pierson are staunch proponents. They view government transparency as a resource targeted and delivered exclusively to benefit ‘self-governing citizens.’

It must be recognized that there is no way to open up the legislative process to the people without also opening it up to lobbyists and interest groups.
Joseph Bessette 1994
Mild Voice of Reason

Government transparency cannot be targeted exclusively at constituents. Like a grenade blast, public information explodes in all directions, shooting downward (toward the people), outward (toward foreign and special interests) and upward (toward the wealthy and the powerful). Therefore increased transparency benefits, as scholar Rudder suggests (1977), anyone who is interested.

Dozens of celebrated scholars agree, open government initiatives provide insider-trading-style-access to the very groups that they are intended to check – corporate lobbyists, the wealthy, powerful political actors (i.e. the President), foreign entities, special interests etc. Indeed, these non-constituent actors have traditionally been the most extreme demanders and consumers of open government data, far outpacing constituents, who rarely monitor Congress at all. Further, as we see in myth 2, these powerful groups are significantly more able to hold members accountable based on this insider information.

Powerful special interests are the principal consumers, demanders and beneficiaries of congressional transparency. These interests include the wealthy, foreign entities and powerful political insiders like the President or the Speaker of the House. And these groups far out-pace constituents when it comes to accessing and employing government data.

The Myth of Congressional Transparency 2021

But as the town hall conversation got chippy — and activists brought up points of disagreement with the senator — Manchin exclaimed, “What you ought to do is vote me out. Vote me out!”
Gabriel DeBenedetti 2017Politico

It is generally understood that if voters do not approve of their representative’s behavior, they can ‘kick the bum out’ in the next election. This notion of accountability is based on electoral rewards and punishments, and it relies on the ability of the voter to monitor their representative.

Thus, it is assumed that by increasing the amount of information that the voter receives, the more finely tuned is the level of accountability. Therefore calls for increased transparency and accountability often go hand in hand. And the notion is that, by increasing transparency, the representative is suddenly more wary of, responsive to and, therefore, more accountable to the voter.

By far the most common assumption is that transparent, accessible information will generate...accountable state behavior – an assumption that in fact glosses over a number of leaps.
McGee & Gaventa 2011
Assessing Impact of Accountability

A ccountability is one of the most poorly conceived mechanisms in all of political science. The notion that voters (by voting) have precise control over their representatives’ behavior is a mathematical impossibility. Using a single known variable, we calculate that political parties, presidents and representatives legislate in a world almost entirely devoid of accountability to the voter. As a result, the voter is virtually powerless to sanction their representative anything but the top one or two issues.

But this doesn’t mean that legislators are unaccountable to everyone. Instead it means that legislators, on the vast majority of the issues, become exclusively accountable to those in power. As Richard Fenno wrote in 1976 “(Members grow to) feel more accountable to some constituents than to others because the support of some constituents is more important to them than the support of others.” And Scholar Bessette (1994) specifies precisely whom Fenno intends by ‘some constituents’ – lobbyists. “The opening up of the legislative process can make lawmakers much more directly accountable to interest groups whose support they may need for reelection.”

The public understanding of how accountability works is based on assumption and guesswork. Indeed, congressional accountability overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy and the powerful. This is because accountability, on the vast majority of issues, is not achieved by voting but instead relies on money, ruthlessness, insider information and power.

To many, the idea of corruption brings up images of secrecy – smoke-filled rooms, back-room deals, money-filled briefcases changing hands in dark alleys, etc. And the overwhelming consensus is that secrecy breeds corruption. As a result, both scholars and transparency organizations assume that increased transparency is the proper tool to battle corruption. This is made clear by the chair of Transparency International, José Ugaz who writes (2016) : “Secrecy fuels corruption and leads to inequality and poverty.” Or Joseph Stiglitz who claims (1999), “Secrecy is corrosive: it is antithetical to democratic values, and it undermines democratic processes.”

And because these notions are delivered with such conviction and they strike a chord with many, they end up being parroted for decades. In one example, Supreme Court Justice, Earl Warren, wrote a paper called ‘Secrecy: Corruption’s Ally’ where he states this notion clearly: “When secrecy surrounds government and the activities of public servants, corruption has a breeding place.”

Transparency can actually make corruption worse.
Michael Johnston 2016
The Sunlight Paradox

Congressional corruption doesn’t require secrecy. This is because congressional corruption (which is the result of an outside pressure like bribery or intimidation) does not need to be conducted in secret. Indeed, as in the case of the Koch brothers (below), bold and public attempts to bribe national legislators often rely instead on end-to-end transparency.

Further, end-to-end transparency gives the wealthy and the powerful an enormous advantage in their application of grand scale intimidation and bribery. By publicizing (indeed broadcasting) all of their threats and deals, they gain a perceived sense of legitimacy as well as an expedited way to interface with legislators.

Combining transparent bribes with transparent voting, we find that grand scale corruption is not just fully compatible with transparency, it is enhanced by it. And special interests aren’t the only perpetrators of this form of corruption, the Speaker partakes as well (below). The article pays particular attention to how Boehner threatens members based on their transparent votes.

Transparency not only allows for grand scale corruption, it enhances it. Unlike secrecy, it allows powerful groups to literally ‘hide in the sunshine’ as they conduct acts in public that would be considered corrupt if they were done in secret.

Today, we will shine a bright light on the linkage between lobbyists and legislators with legislation that requires an unprecedented level of disclosure. And in so doing, we keep our promise to drain the swamp that is Washington DC, to let sunshine disinfect the Congress.
Nancy Pelosi 2007
Open Government Act

Is there evidence to support the recent obsession with increased transparency and accountability? This is the notion embraced by Nancy Pelosi (above), the World Bank, President Obama (“Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government”), countless journalists, myriad scholars and even by an internal congressional caucus devoted to transparency.

Further, some pundits claim that they have proof. For example, White House counsel, Norman Eisen went so far as to claim in a 2017 talk at Harvard that the data supports congressional transparency, citing his often cited (and flawed) Brookings paper as evidence.

After reviewing the empirical evidence for the assumed link between transparency and accountability, I have come to the conclusion that one does not necessarily lead to the other.
Jonathan Fox 2007
Uncertain Relationship

There is no evidence to support the benefits of congressional transparency. The most systematic study on the topic states right at the top “government transparency is no cure-all and does not always have positive outcomes.” And while the article is sometimes supportive of the notion of government transparency, it underlines time and again, that the evidence to support transparency is far from conclusive, stating that the “efforts to enhance transparency often result in more harm than good.”

Further, celebrated scholars Mansbridge and Warren claim the direct opposite, stating “the empirical evidence on the deliberative benefits of closed-door interactions seems incontrovertible.” This not only agrees with the work of James Madison and the other Founders who were all strong advocates of secrecy, it also corresponds with the data, which shows that the US, under a secretive legislature (1960s), had all time lows in income inequality, partisanship, incarceration and government spending.

There is an abject lack of evidence, data or research to support congressional transparency. Worse, the correlations, data, and increasingly the theory, strongly suggest that congressional transparency leads to exceedingly detrimental legislative outcomes.

A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both.
James Madison 1822

Nearly every democratic reform initiative relies on notions of increased citizen engagement. This is not a new concept. Since the time of the Founders, it has been assumed that an informed and engaged citizenry is essential to the success of democracy. The logic is apparently straightforward – an informed citizenry will elect better candidates and better hold their representatives accountable.

In addition, these ‘democratizing’ reforms rely on the further assumption that citizens want to engage. Indeed, most transparency advocacy groups adhere to the belief that citizens would readily engage if all government information were made available in an accessible form. In other words, they assume that the citizen demand for government information is there, but the supply needs to be improved.

Nothing strikes the student of public opinion and democracy more forcefully than the paucity of information most people possess about politics. Decades of behavioral research have shown that most people know little about their elected officeholders, less about their opponents, and virtually nothing about the public issues that occupy officials from Washington to city hall.
John Ferejohn 1990
Information and the Electoral Process

Multiple studies confirm that citizens do not pay attention to the actions of Congress. As a result scholars conclude that voter ignorance is rampant and always has been. Further, it is unlikely to improve, as government produces millions of pages of hearings each year, tens of thousands of pages of legislation, involving thousands of votes on myriad intricate and nuanced issues covering subjects as diverse as boll weevils, genetically modified foods, theoretical economics, trade policy, weapons systems, tax code adjustments, education reform, etc.

With gigabytes of data to sort through, even the most vigilant citizens are quickly overwhelmed. And even professors of Congress follow less than 1% of what goes on.

And while the evidence is clear that citizens do not pay attention to government, it seems just as likely that this is something citizens are incapable of doing, an idea supported by scholars like Etizioni: “Evidence assembled by behavioral economists strongly indicates that people are neither as able to process information nor as likely to act on it as transparency theory presumes.”

Further those who claim that citizens have a 'right to know' are simply making this up. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution gives Congress a right to legislative secrecy - a notion endorsed by both the actions and words of the Framers. Even the celebrated quote by James Madison, often used by sunshine proponents, is taken out of context. Madison was not referring to government transparency when he suggested that the public have greater knowledge, but to the benefits of public schooling. In short, the champion of government secrecy was endorsing literacy, not greater public involvement in the workings of Congress.

But, What if Voter Apathy is Okay?

Not everyone agrees that low levels of civic knowledge constitute a threat to democratic politics...many believe that the need for a generally informed citizenry is overstated. For these scholars the solution [is] to rethink the definition of democracy itself. This view is reflected in the words of E.E. Schattschneider, who wrote: “It is an outrage to attribute the failures of American democracy to the ignorance and stupidity of the masses. The most disastrous shortcomings of the system have been those of the intellectuals whose concepts of democracy have been amazingly rigid and uninventive.”
Delli & Carpini 2005
What Americans Know about Politics

While a number of scholars claim that a lack of citizen engagement is a fatal problem, significant data suggests otherwise. And because lobbyists for the powerful appear to be the main consumers of transparent government, the evidence (below) suggests that governments function even better without a fully informed citizenry.

R epublics appear to function better when citizen engagement (and, therefore, special interest engagement) is intentionally limited. This is convenient as there is no evidence to suggest that the public is willing or even capable of engaging in democracy in the ways reformers require. As such, many ‘democratizing reforms’ rely on overly optimistic (pigs fly) scenarios, which lead to tragic outcomes.

When corporate interests enjoy such prominent influence in the decision-making process we effectively can talk about corporate capture...This is where transparency comes in. Transparency is crucial in the fight for good governance as it allows journalists...to expose corporate capture when it happens.
Myriam Douo 2017
Transparency to Tackle Corporate Capture

Surely, greedy corporations, looking to hide their corrupt actions must fight against transparency. Indeed, little could be more obvious than the idea that corporations, in particular, are held in check by increased transparency as government sunshine puts a check on the secret dealings between corporations and the government. Thus, corporations looking to avoid regulations, taxes and perhaps even maintain monopolies find government transparency problematic as it impinges on their ability to manipulate the government in order to maximize their profits.

Corporations and lobbying groups have seized on the open hearings to help them hold legislators accountable as never before.
Martha Hamilton 1984
Opening Up Congress

Corporations do fight transparency – just not the government kind. So, while they wage war all kinds of corporate lobbying disclosures and corporate transparency, there is no evidence that corporations fight open congressional committees or votes.

Worse, it turns out to work in precisely the opposite way. From the Kochs and Bezos, to Google and Microsoft, the wealthiest lobbyists fund transparency initiatives. Microsoft, Fidelity and eBay sponsor the Sunlight Foundation. Jeff Bezos added a nod to transparency when he bought the Washington Post. The Kochs fund the Freedom of Information Coalition. And Google sponsors transparency camps led by Daniel Schuman and others.

Further, corporate lobbyists team up with transparency advocates to open doors of legislatures. And there appears to be no history of corporate lobbyists ever resisting increased government transparency initiatives. Further there is a similar lack of evidence that corporations have been somehow held in check by increased legislative transparency.

But there is evidence to the contrary. For example, in 2013, the American League of Lobbyist, the nation’s largest lobbying industry group, stated that it aims “to foster open and transparent debates in the formulation of public policy,” leading to a form of capture that strikes even republican advisors:

Transparency is a useful tool for lobbyists – it enables them to keep better track of their competitors, and to demand equal access for themselves.
David Frum 2014
The Transparency Trap

Conversely, in the 1980s even the most pro-transparency groups (Nader, Common Cause) were rethinking their positions on openness because legislation produced behind closed doors appeared to provide powerful checks on corporate interests. Further, in the late 1960s, when there was strong legislative secrecy, both corporations and business lobbyists were continually shut out of the legislative process, leading corporate lawyer Lewis Powell to complain with fury:

Business has been the favorite whipping-boy of many politicians for many years…Current examples of the impotency of business, and of the near-contempt with which businessmen’s views are held, are the stampedes by politicians to support almost any legislation related to consumerism or to the environment.
Lewis Powell 1971
Attack on the Free Enterprise System

Government transparency overwhelmingly benefits corporate interests. And based on their donations and sponsorships it appears large corporations are aware of this. Further, we have found no evidence, nor do we expect to find any, of a corporate interest (or corporate lobbyist) pushing back against increased government transparency, as it is often essential to their success.

One of the most cliché myths is the notion that legislators are easily bought. As politician Jim Hightower states “candidates trek to the corporate suites and secret retreats of the rich, shamelessly selling their political souls.” This is supported by Ted Cruz, who says, “career politicians’ ears and wallets are open to the highest bidder.” This is a notion that is based on ample real world evidence and academic studies. And its proponents come from both the right and the left:

American democracy has been hacked...The United States Congress...is now incapable of passing laws without permission from the corporate lobbies and other special interests that control their campaign finances.
Al Gore 2013
The Future

The biggest problem with bribery claims, is that 95% of dark money ends up in the pockets of the media and not in the hands of politicians. This is because the vast majority of political spending is spent on advertising, mostly attack ads (a form of intimidation). In leaked conversations head of CBS has often called election season a time of bounty. And media lobbies fight campaign finance reform.

Further, a strong correlation between PAC money and voting behavior doesn’t necessarily mean that members of Congress are bought. Even data showing that a number of individual legislators have succumbed to bribery doesn’t equate to proof either, as the number of convictions (and even indictments) includes only a tiny minority (less than 1%) of legislators. And in the US Congress 218 votes are required to pass legislation in the House.

So, with conviction rates as low as this, it appears that members of Congress might be no more or less corrupt than most any other group of people. This notion is underlined by scholar Dan Ariely who finds that folks involved in politics are no more or less honest than regular people, but likely twice as honest as bankers – ideas supported further by scholar Medvic and Lessig. And from actors, to athletes, to religious leaders, to corporate execs, both Ariely and Medvic find similar numbers of bad seeds in every group – not just politicians.

When we actually meet our congressman, we confront an obvious dissonance. For that person is not the evil soul we imagined behind our government. She is not sleazy. He is not lazy. Indeed, practically every single member of Congress is not just someone who seems decent. Practically every single member of Congress is decent. These are people who entered public life for the best possible reasons. They believe in what they do. They make enormous sacrifices in order to do what they do. They give us confidence, despite the fact that they work in an institution that has lost the public’s confidence.
Lawrence Lessig 2011
Republic Lost

Intimidation is More Powerful than Bribery

In electoral politics the most persuasive incentive is fear – fear of defeat. Survival in office is the paramount concern.
Robert Kaiser 2011
So Damn Much Money: The Triumph of Lobbying

So how do we square the circle? We know that studies show that PAC money correlates to influence. We know that citizens can feel the pervasive power of corporate money (bankers, oil companies and the pharmaceutical companies) on legislation. Is it really possible to defend our legislators from the accusations of venality?

The answer is yes. This is because the trouble with these notions is a blinkered focus on bribery and a poor understanding of the legislative process. Indeed, bribery is just one of a myriad number of ways that legislators can be pressured. More importantly, there are numerous powerful ways to pressure legislators that do not involve putting any cash in their pockets. These include attack ads, negative press, challenger funding, and blocking a member’s preferred legislation (thus preventing them from delivering on their promises). More importantly, all of these tactics can be promised – though not delivered – as part of a zero-cost strategy to intimidate legislators based on their votes and other actions.

It might be possible for the interest group to secure the same favours, not by contributing, but simply by threatening the incumbent with a donation to the challenger.
Nicolas Motz 2015
Parties, Interest Groups, and Political Outcomes

Indeed, as pressures go, bribery (versus negative ads and intimidation) appears to be one of the most expensive and least effective tactics that a lobbyist can choose.

Thus, even wealthy interests often find it more economical and effective to avoid bribery by employing intimidation by threatening negative ads, the funding of challengers or the finagling inside of the political system. And because this process has no name we call it brubery. Indeed, as intimidation often doesn’t cost anything at all, it is the preferred tactic of groups like the NRA, police unions and Presidents who launch blanket threats at legislators, often at zero-cost. And because intimidation (unlike bribery) works like a grenade, it is just as effective on legislators who these groups did not target or often even consider.

The myth of venal legislators is pervasive

The evidence does not support the notion that Congress is governed by bribery or legalized bribery. Instead, legislators are intimidated and coerced into painful compromises by powerful special interests – all actions that rely on transparent voting and open committee markup sessions.

The Myth of Bribery 2021