David E Pozen; Michael Schudson — Troubling Transparency- The History and Future of Freedom of Information Series

82 published claims from this book.

• 12% of FOIA requests to the NSA were about UFOs in the 1990s.
• 40 percent of stories leading to policy reviews involved government records requests.
• Absence of FOIA hinders truth preservation, not just its presence.
• Amartya Sen found no famine occurs in democracies with free press.
• Broad constituencies strengthen the stability of transparency regimes.
• Bureaucratic practices hinder effective management of information secrecy.
• By 2016, 42 percent of FOIA requests were denied.
• Certain businesses profit by reselling records obtained through FOIA requests.
• Commercial requester prevalence limits FOIA’s intended use for democratic oversight.
• Commercial requests diminish the original democratic intent of FOIA.
• Constitutional protection has strengthened rights to access information.
• Corruption is both a cause and symptom of democratic failure.
• Countries exhibit significant variations in RTI laws compared to U.S. FOIA.
• Democratic systems prevent famines through media and elections.
• Effective use of transparency tools requires public intermediaries for interpretation.
• Famine outcomes are not merely determined by food scarcity.
• FOI requests have led to significant government action.
• FOIA allows individuals to sue for information when records are withheld.
• FOIA can contribute to public perceptions of government incompetence.
• FOIA has existed for over fifty years and allowed iterative amendments.
• FOIA is part of the Administrative Procedure Act, a significant statute.
• FOIA is widely seen as a foundational law for citizens’ information rights.
• FOIA legitimized the previously unilateral classification system.
• FOIA may harm the regulatory state by increasing administrative costs.
• FOIA remains essential for ensuring access to data until open data policies are established.
• FOIA requires administrative capacity to hold government accountable.
• FOIA significantly legitimized the classification system.
• FOIA undermines regulatory capacity by shifting resources.
• FOIA’s current impact on government democracy is increasingly questioned.
• FOIA’s effectiveness depends on supportive institutions and practices.
• FOIA’s effectiveness diminishes due to inefficient request processes.
• FOIA’s future may require shrinking its operational framework.
• FOIA’s ideal of transparency has practical implications for government.
• FOIA’s limitations challenge the assumption it can provide constitutional-like rights.
• FOIA’s status affects its effectiveness in promoting transparency.
• Foreign RTI laws show major divergence from the U.S. FOIA model.
• Government support for journalism can improve public affairs coverage.
• Heavier users of FOIA requests include businesses, law firms, and individuals.
• Higher output transparency improves public access to useful information.
• Increased judicial exemptions can lead to more FOIA request denials.
• Information asymmetries result from bureaucratic structures rather than merely legal inadequacies.
• Input transparency involves higher costs and lower benefits
• Investigations with records requests often lead to policy change.
• Limited tracking of FOI requests hinders understanding of state FOI law effectiveness.
• Local newspaper FOIA requests dropped by about 50 percent by 2010.
• Mexico’s information commissioner drives the efficiency of its FOI regime.
• Michigan’s FOIA revealed attempts to cover up lead contamination in Flint.
• Monitory democracy includes ongoing scrutiny of government activity.
• More than one hundred countries adopted FOI measures by 2016.
• News media requests are marginalized in the state FOI process.
• Open data transforms transparency into a mechanism for citizen participation in democracy.
• Opposition to FOIA did not solely stem from self-interest.
• Output transparency and input transparency are distinct concepts
• Output transparency should be prioritized for freedom of information efforts.
• Over 700,000 FOIA requests were submitted in 2015.
• Over one hundred countries have adopted FOI laws based on the FOIA model.
• Proposed amendments to FOIA could improve public access to information.
• Public interest balancing could enhance FOIA’s effectiveness.
• Recent judicial decisions enable broader application of FOIA exemptions.
• RTI innovations outside the U.S. exceed those derived from U.S. FOIA.
• Significant investments in investigative reporting can lead to extensive policy benefits.
• State FOI requests can lead to significant changes in government actions.
• State-level FOI requests by journalists are rarely logged.
• States often lack consistent data on FOI request implementation.
• Structural corruption leads to democratic failure and social domination.
• Structural corruption reflects misuse of power and privilege in society.
• Sunlight can operate as a disinfectant in promoting transparency
• Taking transparency in government is crucial for democracy.
• The Administrative Procedure Act is considered as a ‘super-statute.’
• The benefits of input transparency are usually significantly lower than outputs.
• The current framework of FOIA allows government to hide critical operational details.
• The DOJ drafted the House Report for FOIA’s passage.
• The Freedom of Information Act emerged in the twentieth century.
• The percentage of FOIA requests denied has significantly increased over time.
• The public interest balancing test is often limited by court decisions.
• The rate of FOIA request denials has increased dramatically since its inception.
• The U.S. pioneered the concept of a right to access public information.
• Transparancy and accountability can enhance citizen participation in democracy.
• Transparency is viewed as a secondary value despite FOIA’s existence.
• Transparency should focus on political rights and citizenship.
• Transparency tools can paradoxically undermine democratic values.
• Trust in legal doctrine overstates the Constitution’s role in transparency.