“Integrity”, the word, has experienced a surge in popularity as our nation reels with the discovery that basic honesty has, much to our collective surprise and disgust, absented itself from the highest levels of some of the major institutions of our culture.
The Catholic Church, several major corporations and the accounting profession have all failed major integrity tests in the last year, with devastating results for thousands of individuals who accepted at face value what the failed institutions had been telling them.
But there is one institution that touches more of us than all these combined–our government.
During the recent election season, candidates for high state office decried the corrupt conduct of their predecessors. However, the question arises: Who has done what they can to protect us from a lack of integrity?
Which states have done the best job at passing laws that discourage corruption and encourage integrity?
How does Illinois stack up?
The Better Government Association’s Integrity Index ranks all 50 states based on their success in creating an environment where public servants are more likely to act with integrity. The index is the product of an exhaustive analysis of the laws in each state that make corruption less likely and awards higher rankings to those states whose laws promote three fundamental values: transparency, accountability and limits.
Illinois ranks close to the bottom.
Strong laws alone, apart from personal integrity, do not guarantee freedom from government corruption.
Exhibit A is Illinois’ sister state Wisconsin.
Though it outranks all other states on the Integrity Index and has long been reputed to be a “clean” state, it is suffering through a “Capitol corruption” scandal involving felony indictments of the state legislature’s three most powerful leaders.
Still, the importance of transparency for government processes is self-evident.
As Lord Acton, a 19th Century writer, observed, “Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity.”
Sunshine as disinfectant has become an accepted sine qua non for democratic government, and not just because openness retards corruption. Uninformed citizens tend to be inactive citizens.
Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis is credited with having said that “the most important office in a democracy is the office of citizen,” and citizen participation in the affairs of government is clearly vital to a healthy democracy.
Need for transparency
Our form of government is sustained by public trust; without openness, trust is absent. Interested citizens cannot discharge the duties of their office unless they are able to determine what their government leaders are doing. Transparency makes that possible.
Citizens who pay attention to the conduct of their government get more honest government. Transparent government thus increases the likelihood of integrity within that government.
The reason the BGA Integrity Index gives higher scores for laws that ensure accountability is because the best of laws will sometimes be broken. Unless those same laws provide for significant consequences in the event of their violation, those tempted to transgress the law will not be deterred.
Where there are no limits on the campaign contributions that may be made or on gifts to public officials, for example, a very small percentage of citizens can gain disproportionately greater access to elected leaders, discouraging citizen participation.
The index ranks the laws of each state in five areas: freedom of information, whistle-blower protection, campaign finance, limits on gifts and laws related to conflicts of interest.
In the rankings, Wisconsin (1), Rhode Island (2), Kentucky (3), Hawaii (4) and California (5) outperformed their sister states; Louisiana (46), Alabama (47), New Mexico (48), Vermont (49) and South Dakota (50) were at the bottom of the ranking.
Not a single state scored what might be considered an A in the academic setting, but some have clearly made much more progress than others in passing laws that encourage integrity and citizen participation.
The index was created solely by reviewing the language contained in relevant statutes in each state. It does not speak to the culture that exists in a given state or the behavior of individual public officials. It is only a statement of how vulnerable a given state may be to corruption. States that ranked toward the bottom clearly do not sufficiently value the principles of transparency, accountability and reasonable limits.
Illinois finished 41st in the overall ranking, indicating that it is vulnerable to corruption. Recent convictions of public officials send the same message, and polls conducted in the current campaign season highlight the voters’ concern with this issue.
Our state’s low ranking is not surprising.
In part, that poor ranking and the corruption scandals are attributable to the extremely weak laws that govern campaign finance in this state.
Money dominates all other considerations in Illinois at election time, and state law places no limits on the amounts that can be donated to candidates. This weakness was at the heart of the “licenses for bribes” scandal that has dogged Gov. George Ryan throughout his term–his one term.
That kickback scheme, which produced funds that ended up in Ryan’s campaign war chest, would have played out differently had the law provided sensible restrictions on raising campaign cash.
Linkage between generous campaign contributions and the awarding of state contracts is taken for granted in Illinois; a survey on the subject revealed that two-thirds of adults responding consider such contributions to be a form of legalized bribery.
Illinois law also fails to adequately limit the amounts of “gifts.” Most big-city police departments prohibit the acceptance of even the smallest gratuity by police officers, based on the “slippery slope” argument that such gifts set the stage for compromised decisions.
Yet Illinois law is so riddled with vague language and loopholes that it leaves both public officials and citizens puzzled about what is permitted.
Illinois law also fails to require public officials to comprehensively disclose the interests they hold in outside ventures that do business with the state. Citizens intent on discovering whether their representative has a conflict of interest are thus thwarted.
What should be transparent remains shrouded in secrecy.
Protecting whistle-blowers
Finally, Illinois does not adequately protect those brave souls known as whistle-blowers.
These are the folks who can’t tolerate or watch corrupt conduct without speaking out. Illinois’ law neither requires that such persons be advised of their rights nor does it punish the wrongdoers who have retaliated. Whistle-blowers can be demoted, threatened or fired without explicit protection for contributing to the common good.
Each of these shortcomings is only part of the problem. There is no guarantee that passage of stronger laws would solve our state’s documented integrity problem. But any serious effort to come to terms with that problem must address the weakness in our laws.
During the campaign, candidates talked about their zeal to tackle corruption. Will the newly elect lead an effort to change our laws, to create an environment where integrity can find support?
Many incumbents, those who hold the “office” of citizen, are counting on them.
The BGA’s ethics ratings
1. Wisconsin
2. Rhode Island
3. Kentucky
4. Hawaii
5. California
6. Nebraska
7. South Carolina
8. West Virginia
9. Texas
10. Maryland
11. Washington
12. New Jersey
13. Connecticut
14. Ohio
15. Massachusetts
16. Colorado
17. Minnesota
18. Florida
19. Oregon
20. Arizona
21. Kansas
22. North Carolina
23. Alaska
24. Maine
25. Oklahoma
26. Georgia
27. Utah
28. Virginia
29. New York
30. Nevada
31. Arkansas
32. Michigan
33. Mississippi
34. Indiana
35. Missouri
36. New Hampshire
37. Wyoming
38. Delaware
39. North Dakota
40. Pennsylvania
41. Illinois
42. Idaho
43. Iowa
44. Tennessee
45. Montana
46. Louisiana
47. Alabama
48. New Mexico
49. Vermont
50. South Dakota
———-
The complete Better Government Association report is available at www.bettergov.org.
