It is almost impossible to guarantee that groups are truly independent, in the sense in which side opposition uses the word. In America, so called “527” organisations [i] , which profess no direct affiliation with a candidate, are permitted to launch campaigns to attack or support particular politicians, without being subjected to the same funding limitations and fair conduct rules as political parties. [ii]  Right-to-life groups and religiously motivated organisations may operate as 527s, along with groups controlled by business organisations. Coordination between 527 groups, candidates and political parties is banned in the US. In practice, however, the close alignment of the groups’ ideological objectives and the characteristic policies of Republican and Democrat candidates leads to 527s taking their cues (and their targets) from the pronouncements of politicians and their campaigns.  Groups such as Citizen’s Solidarity and the Indian anti-corruption movement mobilised around Anna Hazare [iii] are comparatively rare. Where flaws in a nation’s democratic institutions are pervasive, affecting coalitions, government and opposition parties, the role of the press as a neutral observer is usually more effective than political attacks in bringing problems to light – consider the role of the Daily Telegraph in disclosing British MP’s misuse of their publicly funded expense allowances [iv] .  [i] “FEC collects $630000 in civil penalties from three 527 organisations”. Federal Election Commission, 13 December 2006.   [ii] Section 527, United Stated Internal Revenue Code.  [iii] “No modern-day Mahatma”. The Economist, 27 April 2011.   [iv] MPs’ Expenses. The Daily Telegraph.