Which US states are the most corrupt?

A recent data-driven study grades all 50 US states on their transparency and accountability, highlighting both disturbing trends and signs of progress. 

Steve Helber/AP
Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell arrives at Federal Court with his son, Bobby, right, for the third day of jury deliberations in his corruption trial in Richmond, Va., Thursday, Sept. 4, 2014.

According to a new 2015 State Integrity Investigation, an assessment of all 50 state governments by the Center for Public Integrity and Global Integrity, 11 states received failing grades, and the highest grade awarded, to Alaska, was only a C.

These grades are determined by answers to 245 questions “that ask about key indicators of transparency and accountability, looking not only at what the laws say, but also how well they’re enforced or implemented,” the study explains. These key indicators fall into 13 categories, including public access to information, state budget processes, political financing, and ethics enforcement agencies. State-based journalists were charged with researching current laws and analyzing their implementation.

California and Connecticut round out the top three states, with Michigan, Wyoming, South Dakota and Nevada among the 11 failed states

This state-level probe found that open record laws with rampant exemptions and loopholes “are a common part of statehouse culture nationwide,” while legislators hide conflicts of interest with private businesses and accept excessive gifts from lobbyists. 

For example, a Missouri lawmaker passed a law prohibiting cities from banning plastic bags at grocery stores, and although he claimed to represent concerned shoppers, he is also the state director of the Missouri Grocers Association. In New Mexico, lawmakers passed legislation in 2013 that exempts their emails from public records laws. 

But it is important to note “There are a couple categories where states scored well,” Nicholas Kusnetz, lead author of the study, told The Christian Science Monitor. “On the good side, a lot of states scored well on budget visibility and internal auditing.”

In the category of "State Budget Processes," seven states scored in the 90s, and only five states failed. And for Internal Auditing, only three states had failing grades. So although most states scored notably worse in 2015 from the 2012 rankings, there have also been some signs of progress. 

After receiving the worst-in-the-nation rank in 2012, Georgia enacted a law the following year that caps lobbyists’ gifts to public officials at $75. And since the 2013 scandal of Virginia’s Gov. Robert McDonnell, where he was accused of accepting more than $170,000 in gifts, the newly-elected Gov. Terry McAuliffe has enacted legislation to dissuade corruption, including a $100 cap on gifts to public officials from people seeking state business.

But it’s hard to ignore that all but six states failed in "Public Access to Information." Is there any hope for the flunked states?

“Most of these measures are unique to these states,” Kusnetz tells The Monitor. “They are creating these rules and laws themselves, so it is largely up to them how on how to handle these issues.” 

Kusnetz says the best hope for these states is to model one another’s good practices. States with corrupt pasts such as Connecticut and Rhode Island have improved their public accountability to be ranked 3rd and 5th in the 2015 study, respectively, by incorporating some of New Jersey's ethics laws. 

But New Jersey’s integrity grade was bumped down from 1st to 19th in the recent ranking, symbolizing the necessary work that still needs to be done across the country. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.