Would You Ask Turkeys to Mandate Thanksgiving? The Dismal Politics of Legislative Transparency

被引:1
作者
Snider, J. H. [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] ISolon Org, Nonprofit Publ Policy Inst, Severna Pk, MD 21146 USA
[2] Harvard Univ, Kennedy Sch Govt, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
[3] New Amer Fdn, Washington, DC USA
[4] US Senate, Washington, DC 20510 USA
关键词
Congress; Congressional Record; deliberative democracy; democratic reform; e-democracy; information policy; legislative studies; roll call votes; THOMAS;
D O I
10.1080/19331680902834935
中图分类号
G2 [信息与知识传播];
学科分类号
05 ; 0503 ;
摘要
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prevents legislators from infringing on the freedom of the press. But, of necessity, legislators have been granted monopoly control of legislative information systems, including parliamentary procedure and roll call votes. New information technology is revolutionizing the economics of legislative information systems. But elected officials have a conflict of interest in using those new technologies to enhance democratic accountability when that might conflict with their own re-election interests. This article looks at the online accessibility of roll call votes by legislators in 126 legislative branches: the two branches of Congress, the 99 branches in the 50 U.S. states, and the 25 branches (city councils) in the 25 largest U.S. cities. It concludes that legislators have a conflict of interest and act on it by making roll call votes inaccessible. Moreover, this particular conflict of interest is merely the tip of the iceberg of a greater incentive problem elected officials have in designing legislative information systems to make themselves more democratically accountable. Legislative information systems are a critical foundation of democratic media systems. Strengthening them should therefore be of concern to anyone interested in strengthening the mass media and democracy.
引用
收藏
页码:127 / 155
页数:29
相关论文
共 78 条
[1]  
Adler E.S., 2002, WHY C REFORMS FAIL R
[2]  
[Anonymous], C REFORM CHANGING MO
[3]  
Arnold R. Douglas, 1990, LOGIC C ACTION
[4]  
Binder Sarah A., 1997, MINORITY RIGHTS MAJO
[5]  
Bogardus Kevin, 2007, HILL
[6]   MOTIVATIONS IN LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION USE [J].
BRADLEY, RB .
LEGISLATIVE STUDIES QUARTERLY, 1980, 5 (03) :393-406
[7]  
Brotherton E., 2007, ROLL CALL
[8]  
*C MAN FDN, 2002, C ONL ASS IMPR CAP H
[9]  
Canton D., 2007, LONDON FREE PRE 0614
[10]  
Center for Digital Government, 2003, 2003 DIG LEG SURV BE