Diagonal Accountability
#13Key Findings
The United States falls into the sample’s middle ranks (rank 13) in the category of diagonal accountability.
The First Amendment strongly protects freedom of speech and the press in the United States. Media generally operate without government interference. However, media ownership is concentrated among a few wealthy individuals. Hyper-partisanship is now a defining feature of the media landscape, helping to intensify political divides.
The fragment media landscape remains pluralistic, but local journalism declined significantly, with most local broadcast and print media now owned by a small number of national firms. Americans have robust rights to form political groups without state intrusion or interference.
The labor movement has a comparatively limited impact on policymaking in most areas. Social welfare organizations can engage in lobbing and political activity. Funding rules have allowed wealthy donors to bankroll “astroturf” activism that pretends to be grassroots-based. Environmental groups are influential and well-funded, but face stiff competition from industry.
The First Amendment strongly protects freedom of speech and the press in the United States. Media generally operate without government interference. However, media ownership is concentrated among a few wealthy individuals. Hyper-partisanship is now a defining feature of the media landscape, helping to intensify political divides.
The fragment media landscape remains pluralistic, but local journalism declined significantly, with most local broadcast and print media now owned by a small number of national firms. Americans have robust rights to form political groups without state intrusion or interference.
The labor movement has a comparatively limited impact on policymaking in most areas. Social welfare organizations can engage in lobbing and political activity. Funding rules have allowed wealthy donors to bankroll “astroturf” activism that pretends to be grassroots-based. Environmental groups are influential and well-funded, but face stiff competition from industry.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent are the media free from government influence and able to act independently?
10
9
9
There are no disincentives, by law or in practice, for the media to criticize the government and public officials.
8
7
6
7
6
Existing disincentives, by law and in practice, pose no significant obstacles to the media in criticizing the government and public officials.
5
4
3
4
3
Existing disincentives, by law and in practice, pose some significant obstacles to the media in criticizing the government and public officials.
2
1
1
Existing disincentives, by law and in practice, pose various significant obstacles to the media in criticizing the government and public officials.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is regarded as a major legal protection for freedom of speech and the press. The United States has historically had a very pluralistic media culture, and news outlets typically operate without much evidence of direct or indirect government interference (Arcenaux and Johnson 2013).
There is limited censorship in the United States, with courts typically adopting a relaxed view about the content of materials published by private individuals and companies.
While the mainstream media in the United States generally operate free from government interference, many popular news outlets are owned by a few wealthy individuals. In a diverse global media landscape, local news has declined significantly in recent years. A growing interest in partisan media threatens objectivity, and public confidence in the media has fallen dangerously. After four years of President Trump constantly denigrating the press, President Biden signaled his administration’s desire to see the U.S. reclaim its global status as a model of freedom of expression, reinstating regular White House and federal agency press briefings. Despite these efforts, many underlying chronic issues impacting journalists remain unaddressed by authorities – including the disappearance of local news, the polarization of the media, and the weakening of journalism and democracy caused by digital platforms and social networks.
Citations:
Kevin Arcenaux and Martin Johnson. 2013. Changing Minds or Changing Channels? Partisan News in an Age of Choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Matthew Levendusky. 2013. How Partisan Media Polarize America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Reporters without Frontiers. “United States.” https://rsf.org/en/country/united-states
There is limited censorship in the United States, with courts typically adopting a relaxed view about the content of materials published by private individuals and companies.
While the mainstream media in the United States generally operate free from government interference, many popular news outlets are owned by a few wealthy individuals. In a diverse global media landscape, local news has declined significantly in recent years. A growing interest in partisan media threatens objectivity, and public confidence in the media has fallen dangerously. After four years of President Trump constantly denigrating the press, President Biden signaled his administration’s desire to see the U.S. reclaim its global status as a model of freedom of expression, reinstating regular White House and federal agency press briefings. Despite these efforts, many underlying chronic issues impacting journalists remain unaddressed by authorities – including the disappearance of local news, the polarization of the media, and the weakening of journalism and democracy caused by digital platforms and social networks.
Citations:
Kevin Arcenaux and Martin Johnson. 2013. Changing Minds or Changing Channels? Partisan News in an Age of Choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Matthew Levendusky. 2013. How Partisan Media Polarize America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Reporters without Frontiers. “United States.” https://rsf.org/en/country/united-states
To what extent is a plurality of opinions in the media ensured?
10
9
9
There are no barriers, by law or in practice, to a pluralistic media landscape that represents all existing political perspectives in society.
8
7
6
7
6
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose no significant obstacles to the media in representing all relevant political perspectives in society.
5
4
3
4
3
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose some significant obstacles to the media in representing all relevant political perspectives in society.
2
1
1
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose various significant obstacles to the media in representing all relevant political perspectives in society.
The fragmented nature of the American media landscape allows for a reasonably pluralistic environment across digital, print, and broadcast media. Citizens and media outlets regularly engage in criticism of the government, with little sense of formal or informal reprisal from government officials. Indeed, robust criticism of the government and debate are generally seen as valuable parts of the political culture (Reuning and Dietrich 2019).
Media pluralism is weakest in local journalism. Declining readership and viewership have eroded the profitability of local media companies. Consequently, most local broadcast and print media are owned by a small number of national networks (Hayes and Lawless 2015).
A major characteristic of the U.S. media landscape is the hyper-partisan nature of many media outlets (Iyengar and Hahn 2013). For the last several decades, cable television and talk radio have made little attempt to be neutral or balanced in their editorializing about politics (Levendusky 2013). These outlets create an echo chamber effect where viewers often choose media sources based on their politics, and then their views about current affairs are reinforced by these sources (Arcenaux and Johnson 2013). This is not new to the American media landscape. In the 19th century, local newspapers were often hyper-partisan and would, in some cases, actually advertise their political allegiances in the newspaper name. Hence, many older local newspapers contain the words “Democrat,” “Republican,” or even “Whig” in their names.
Citations:
Danny Hayes and Jennifer Lawless. 2015. “As Local News Goes, So Goes Citizen Engagement: Media, Knowledge, and Participation in US House Elections.” Journal of Politics.
Kevin Arcenaux and Martin Johnson. 2013. Changing Minds or Changing Channels? Partisan News in an Age of Choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kevin Reuning and Nick Dietrich. 2019. “Media Coverage, Public Interest, and Support in the 2016 Republican Invisible Primary.” Perspectives on Politics.
Shanto Iyengar and Kyu Hahn. 2009. “Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use.” Journal of Communication.
Media pluralism is weakest in local journalism. Declining readership and viewership have eroded the profitability of local media companies. Consequently, most local broadcast and print media are owned by a small number of national networks (Hayes and Lawless 2015).
A major characteristic of the U.S. media landscape is the hyper-partisan nature of many media outlets (Iyengar and Hahn 2013). For the last several decades, cable television and talk radio have made little attempt to be neutral or balanced in their editorializing about politics (Levendusky 2013). These outlets create an echo chamber effect where viewers often choose media sources based on their politics, and then their views about current affairs are reinforced by these sources (Arcenaux and Johnson 2013). This is not new to the American media landscape. In the 19th century, local newspapers were often hyper-partisan and would, in some cases, actually advertise their political allegiances in the newspaper name. Hence, many older local newspapers contain the words “Democrat,” “Republican,” or even “Whig” in their names.
Citations:
Danny Hayes and Jennifer Lawless. 2015. “As Local News Goes, So Goes Citizen Engagement: Media, Knowledge, and Participation in US House Elections.” Journal of Politics.
Kevin Arcenaux and Martin Johnson. 2013. Changing Minds or Changing Channels? Partisan News in an Age of Choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kevin Reuning and Nick Dietrich. 2019. “Media Coverage, Public Interest, and Support in the 2016 Republican Invisible Primary.” Perspectives on Politics.
Shanto Iyengar and Kyu Hahn. 2009. “Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use.” Journal of Communication.
Graph View
To what extent are citizens able to freely form or join independent political and civic groups, openly raise and discuss political issues, and assemble without restrictions?
10
9
9
There are no barriers, by law or in practice to creating an engaged society and civil society organizations that are free to operate.
8
7
6
7
6
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose very few or no significant obstacles to creating an engaged society and civil society organizations that are free to operate.
5
4
3
4
3
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose some significant obstacles to the creation of an engaged society and civil society organizations that are free to operate.
2
1
1
Existing barriers, by law and in practice, pose various significant obstacles to the creation of an engaged society and civil society organizations that are free to operate.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of assembly. Americans have robust rights to form political groups without unwarranted state intrusion or interference in their activities. Similarly, citizen groups usually possess strong rights to use public and private spaces to assemble and promote their ideas (Abrams 2017).
The Supreme Court has permitted a certain degree of government regulation regarding the time, place, and manner of assemblies, adhering to reasonably strict criteria. The court insists that any administrative regulation of the right to assemble must remain strictly neutral concerning the content of the assembly. Alternative means of communication must also be allowed (Nossell 2020).
Citations:
Floyd Abrams. 2017. The Soul of the First Amendment. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Suzanne Nossell. 2020. Dare to Speak. New York: Dey Street Books.
The Supreme Court has permitted a certain degree of government regulation regarding the time, place, and manner of assemblies, adhering to reasonably strict criteria. The court insists that any administrative regulation of the right to assemble must remain strictly neutral concerning the content of the assembly. Alternative means of communication must also be allowed (Nossell 2020).
Citations:
Floyd Abrams. 2017. The Soul of the First Amendment. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Suzanne Nossell. 2020. Dare to Speak. New York: Dey Street Books.
To what extent do civil society organizations (CSOs) have the capacity to actively participate in the co-creation of relevant policies?
10
9
9
All the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
5
4
3
4
3
Few of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
2
1
1
None of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
Unions underwrote the affluence of the American working class in the twentieth century. They secured higher wages, limited working hours, improved working conditions, and a range of “fringe benefits,” including health insurance and pensions for their members (Moody 2014).
Trade union membership in the United States is still largely governed by the framework established in the National Labor Relations Act, known popularly as the Wagner Act, passed in 1935 during the New Deal Era. The legislation created the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a federal agency that enforces labor law in the U.S. The NLRB regulates union activity, including ballots and strikes. It also has a quasi-judicial function, issuing rules on the application of labor law, some of which can be quite consequential. The board comprises five individuals, each appointed by the president for five-year terms. The chairperson is chosen from among them by the president and serves at the president’s pleasure (Milkman 2019).
The peak density of the unionized workforce occurred in 1954, when 35% of non-farm workers were unionized. The peak number of total union members was in 1983, with 17.7 million workers in a union, or about 20% of the workforce. Today, only about 10% of workers are in a union. This decline has been driven by the collapse of private sector unions. In 1970, 30% of private sector workers were in a union. Forty years later, that figure had dropped to just 6%. In contrast, 34% of public sector workers are currently unionized, a level equivalent to the peak of the unionized private sector workforce in the 1950s (Walker 2014).
There is a significant disparity in unionization across industries. In local government, including public safety, 40% of workers belong to a union. In education, the figure is 34%. However, in retail, only 3% are union members, and in food and drink services, it is just 1%. Women make up 46% of union members. One in three union members are non-white. African Americans have the highest union density at about 13%; Asian Americans have the lowest at about 8% (Frymer and Grumbach 2020).
In the United States, the labor movement has a comparatively limited impact on policymaking in most areas. Low unionization rates in the private sector limit the social and political influence of labor unions, and the absence of a stand-alone labor party helps explain this relatively limited impact (Maioni 1998).
Citations:
Antonia Maioni. 1998. Parting at the Crossroads: The Emergence of Health Insurance in the United States and Canada. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kim Moody. 2014. In Solidarity. Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Alexis Walker. 2014. “Labor’s Enduring Divide: The Distinct Path of Public Sector Unions in the United States.” Studies in American Political Development.
Michael Brown. 1997/98. “Bargaining for Social Rights: Unions and the Re-emergence of Welfare Capitalism.” Political Science Quarterly.
Paul Frymer and Jacob Grumbach. 2020. “Labor Unions and White Racial Politics.” American Journal of Political Science.
Ruth Milkman. 2019. “The World We Have Lost: US Labor in the Obama Years.” In Looking Back on President Barack Obama’s Legacy, ed. W. Rich. Palgrave.
Trade union membership in the United States is still largely governed by the framework established in the National Labor Relations Act, known popularly as the Wagner Act, passed in 1935 during the New Deal Era. The legislation created the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a federal agency that enforces labor law in the U.S. The NLRB regulates union activity, including ballots and strikes. It also has a quasi-judicial function, issuing rules on the application of labor law, some of which can be quite consequential. The board comprises five individuals, each appointed by the president for five-year terms. The chairperson is chosen from among them by the president and serves at the president’s pleasure (Milkman 2019).
The peak density of the unionized workforce occurred in 1954, when 35% of non-farm workers were unionized. The peak number of total union members was in 1983, with 17.7 million workers in a union, or about 20% of the workforce. Today, only about 10% of workers are in a union. This decline has been driven by the collapse of private sector unions. In 1970, 30% of private sector workers were in a union. Forty years later, that figure had dropped to just 6%. In contrast, 34% of public sector workers are currently unionized, a level equivalent to the peak of the unionized private sector workforce in the 1950s (Walker 2014).
There is a significant disparity in unionization across industries. In local government, including public safety, 40% of workers belong to a union. In education, the figure is 34%. However, in retail, only 3% are union members, and in food and drink services, it is just 1%. Women make up 46% of union members. One in three union members are non-white. African Americans have the highest union density at about 13%; Asian Americans have the lowest at about 8% (Frymer and Grumbach 2020).
In the United States, the labor movement has a comparatively limited impact on policymaking in most areas. Low unionization rates in the private sector limit the social and political influence of labor unions, and the absence of a stand-alone labor party helps explain this relatively limited impact (Maioni 1998).
Citations:
Antonia Maioni. 1998. Parting at the Crossroads: The Emergence of Health Insurance in the United States and Canada. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kim Moody. 2014. In Solidarity. Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Alexis Walker. 2014. “Labor’s Enduring Divide: The Distinct Path of Public Sector Unions in the United States.” Studies in American Political Development.
Michael Brown. 1997/98. “Bargaining for Social Rights: Unions and the Re-emergence of Welfare Capitalism.” Political Science Quarterly.
Paul Frymer and Jacob Grumbach. 2020. “Labor Unions and White Racial Politics.” American Journal of Political Science.
Ruth Milkman. 2019. “The World We Have Lost: US Labor in the Obama Years.” In Looking Back on President Barack Obama’s Legacy, ed. W. Rich. Palgrave.
To what extent do civil society organizations (CSOs) have the capacity to actively participate in the co-creation of relevant policies?
10
9
9
All the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
5
4
3
4
3
Few of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
2
1
1
None of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
The United States has a thriving charity sector. The federal tax code treats contributions to charitable organizations generously. Social welfare organizations have a charitable aim but legally enjoy greater scope to lobby and engage in political activity than straightforward charities (Johnson 2018).
Since the 2010 Citizens United case, social welfare organizations have been allowed to raise and spend unlimited funds to advocate for their causes (Witko 2017). They are also typically permitted to engage in such activities without disclosing their donors. This has led to accusations of “astroturf” activism, where groups that appear to be large-scale grassroots campaign organizations are actually well-funded initiatives by a small number of wealthy donors, or even a single individual, bankrolling the entire effort (Charnock 2020).
Religious organizations are another form of important social welfare organization in the United States. The United States has a much higher level of religious belief and participation than peer rich democracies. Many religious denominations and religiously inspired organizations are highly active in politics, lobbying on behalf of causes they care deeply about, including abortion, family, environment, poverty, and much else (Chand 2017).
Citations:
Richard Johnson. 2020. “Low-Resource Candidates and Fundraising Appeals.” In E. Suhay, B. Grofman, and A. Treschel, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Christopher Witko. 2017. “Regulation and Upper-Class Bias in Campaign Finance.” Election Law Journal.
Emily Charnock. 2020. The Rise of Political Action Committees: Interest Group Electioneering and the Transformation of American Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Daniel Chand. 2017. “Lobbying and Nonprofits.” Social Science Quarterly.
Since the 2010 Citizens United case, social welfare organizations have been allowed to raise and spend unlimited funds to advocate for their causes (Witko 2017). They are also typically permitted to engage in such activities without disclosing their donors. This has led to accusations of “astroturf” activism, where groups that appear to be large-scale grassroots campaign organizations are actually well-funded initiatives by a small number of wealthy donors, or even a single individual, bankrolling the entire effort (Charnock 2020).
Religious organizations are another form of important social welfare organization in the United States. The United States has a much higher level of religious belief and participation than peer rich democracies. Many religious denominations and religiously inspired organizations are highly active in politics, lobbying on behalf of causes they care deeply about, including abortion, family, environment, poverty, and much else (Chand 2017).
Citations:
Richard Johnson. 2020. “Low-Resource Candidates and Fundraising Appeals.” In E. Suhay, B. Grofman, and A. Treschel, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Christopher Witko. 2017. “Regulation and Upper-Class Bias in Campaign Finance.” Election Law Journal.
Emily Charnock. 2020. The Rise of Political Action Committees: Interest Group Electioneering and the Transformation of American Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Daniel Chand. 2017. “Lobbying and Nonprofits.” Social Science Quarterly.
To what extent do civil society organizations (CSOs) have the capacity to actively participate in the co-creation of relevant policies?
10
9
9
All the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
5
4
3
4
3
Few of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
2
1
1
None of the major CSOs active in the field have the capacity to shape public policies.
The environmental movement has a long history in the United States (McCright et al. 2014). In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, various groups (e.g., the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society) were formed. The movement had a second wave in the 1960s and 1970s, which saw significant legislative advances. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which remains the premier federal agency for the management of the natural environment, was established in 1970 by executive order by President Richard Nixon and subsequently placed on statutory footing by Congress (Price 2021). The agency enforces environmental regulations (e.g., regarding air, water, hazardous waste) and funds environmental research in over two dozen federal laboratories.
The 1970s was a decade of significant climate legislation. These include the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Clean Water Act of 1972, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (Turner 2018).
Today, there are a significant number of environmental CSOs with sizable public memberships. The National Wildlife Federation, for example, has over 4 million members, while the National Resources Defense Council has 2.5 million members.
These organizations, however, face stiff competition from industry, which can afford high-powered lobbyists and lawyers to advocate for their interests in courts and in the corridors of Congress and state legislatures. In 2022, for example, the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA’s Clean Power Plan as an overreach of its statutory authority. The consequence of this ruling was to limit the EPA’s power to regulate emissions (Gonzalez 2019).
Citations:
George Gonzalez. 2019. “The Obama Administration’s Global Warming Legacy: Going With the Flow and the Politics of Failure.” In Looking Back on President Obama’s Legacy, ed. W. Rich. Palgrave.
Aaron McCright, Chenyang Xiao, and Riley Dunlap. 2014. “Political Polarization on Support for Government Spending on Environmental Protection in the USA, 1974-2012.” Social Science Research.
James Turner. 2018. The Republican Reversal: Conservatives and the Environment from Nixon to Trump. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
John Price. 2021. The Last Liberal Republican. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
The 1970s was a decade of significant climate legislation. These include the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Clean Water Act of 1972, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (Turner 2018).
Today, there are a significant number of environmental CSOs with sizable public memberships. The National Wildlife Federation, for example, has over 4 million members, while the National Resources Defense Council has 2.5 million members.
These organizations, however, face stiff competition from industry, which can afford high-powered lobbyists and lawyers to advocate for their interests in courts and in the corridors of Congress and state legislatures. In 2022, for example, the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA’s Clean Power Plan as an overreach of its statutory authority. The consequence of this ruling was to limit the EPA’s power to regulate emissions (Gonzalez 2019).
Citations:
George Gonzalez. 2019. “The Obama Administration’s Global Warming Legacy: Going With the Flow and the Politics of Failure.” In Looking Back on President Obama’s Legacy, ed. W. Rich. Palgrave.
Aaron McCright, Chenyang Xiao, and Riley Dunlap. 2014. “Political Polarization on Support for Government Spending on Environmental Protection in the USA, 1974-2012.” Social Science Research.
James Turner. 2018. The Republican Reversal: Conservatives and the Environment from Nixon to Trump. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
John Price. 2021. The Last Liberal Republican. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.