When Paul Volcker announced this week that he was starting a new organization--the Volcker Alliance--whose goal is to "restore public trust in the government"--at Sunlight we knew all too well the frustration that inspires him.

We've been tracking the "Volcker rule," the provision at the heart of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial law meant to prohibit taxpayer-backed banks from entering risky trades for their own profit. The rule has been through several iterations, drawn more than 17,000 comments, and has yet to be finalized. "[A]pparently dead in the water," is how Bart Chilton, a commissioner with the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation (CFTC) described it this week to Yahoo's Daily Ticker.

Last year Sunlight reported that in the weeks before JP Morgan announced a $2 billion hedging loss--the sort of trade that the Volcker rule is meant to address--the company's CEO, Jamie Dimon, met with then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to discuss this very provision. Dimon was not a fan of the rule. Indeed, Treasury Department meeting logs show that a whole parade of banking CEOs made their way to the agency to discuss the Volcker rule with top officials.

It is precisely this kind of story of how Washington really works that makes restoring public trust in government a daunting--but necessary--task. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis,  millions of Americans lost their jobs and their homes. Yet as we approach the third anniversary of the passage of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, federal agencies have missed nearly two-thirds of the rule writing deadlines written into the law. Quoting Chilton again, "Lobbying, litigation and lawmakers who have tried to defund and defang Dodd-Frank have all brought rule-writing to a crawl. Regulators themselves have become overly concerned about finalizing rules. Over-analysis paralysis, fears of litigation risks, and the lack of people-power have all contributed to the slowdown."

Meanwhile, the level of transparency surrounding Dodd-Frank lobbying is severely wanting. After the law was passed, the major financial agencies charged with implementing the law volunteered to disclose on their websites meetings with outside parties concerning implementation. However this noble pledge was hampered by the fact that all of the agencies chose to post their records in varying formats over different time periods and in formats that are  not easily translated to a database for analysis. Sunlight Labs built a Dodd-Frank meetings log tracker to follow all of these postings, but because of the poor quality of the records fueling it, the tracker does not provide the comprehensive view of all of these meetings that we had hoped. What analysis we've been able to conduct on these meeting logs shows that they are heavily dominated by financial industry representatives and lobbyists. The very story mentioned above, about Dimon's meeting with Geithner concerning the Volcker rule, was only possible because we were watchdogging the Treasury Department. That particular month the department was late on its self imposed deadline for posting meetings, and made them public only after we inquired where they were.

The Volcker Alliance website is still bare bones and does not describe in depth what the new organization will do beyond sponsoring “research on government performance, making actionable recommendations for policy and implementation, and provide a forum for discussion of new ideas and tools to strengthen policy execution at all levels of the government.” Headed by Shelley Metzenbaum, a veteran of the Office of Management and Budget, the board consists of luminaries from both left and right, from Donna Shalala, former Health and Human Services secretary under President Bill Clinton, to Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute.

At Sunlight, we are supportive of any effort to strengthen the responsiveness of government as part of our mission to increase government transparency. And given our own frustration with poor data and data reporting hampering accountability on the implementation of the Dodd-Frank law, we would hope that the Volcker Alliance would support our efforts on the transparency front. One key way to lead in this direction: by example. As a charity under 501(c)3 of the tax code, the Alliance is not required to disclose its donors to the public, and so far it has not. When contacted by Sunlight to ask who the donors are, a spokesperson for the organization issued a statement saying "the information will be provided in due course." When asked for clarification, the the spokesperson said, "the organization is still deciding on how and when it would release donor information because the group is still in its nascent phase." This should not be a difficult question.  To help reinforce the message about the importance of transparency -- a key element in enhancing the public trust Volcker said he wants to foster --  we urge the Volcker Alliance to disclose its donors on its website, just as we do. Transparency should be part of the culture of this organization from the start.

Keenan Steiner contributed reporting to this post.

Plastic.

We weren't  looking for it, but thanks to Sunlight's Scout alert system for tracking legislative and regulatory actions, we found it--and the result was this story on our Reporting site: ExxonMobil lobbies consumer agency on phthalates.

One of the alerts I have set up in Scout is the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the independent agency that regulates the safety of consumer products. In the past, Sunlight has followed controversy around a public CPSC consumer complaint database launched in 2011 that is opposed by industry and often under attack by congressional Republicans.

The alert that came my way recently was this one regarding a final rule the commission was publishing in the Federal Register dealing with pthalates. Pthalates are plasticizers that are under scrutiny for possible health effects, particuarly in children. Specifically, the rule addressed standards for phthalates in parts of toys that are not accessible to children.

Originally I thought I'd do a story focusing on this rule, but as I talked to advocates working on the issue they brought up another, more encompassing issue. As I soon learned, the CPSC, under mandate from a 2008 law known as the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, was nearly a year late with a study on the health effects of these chemicals, and nobody knew quite why.

As I dug into the topic I realized it had a number of elements that Sunlight cares about: public data and influence. As it turns out, the advisory committee, known as CHAP, or Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel, that was conducting the review of science around phthalates for the CPSC conducted its deliberations largely in public. The Commission maintains a spot on its website that gathers together records of all of the committee's meetings, including links to materials submitted by participants and logs of the attendees, some of which took place at the commission's office in Bethesda, Md.,  some of them by teleconference.

For us, this was a gold mine of information. I was particuarly interested in the meeting logs, as we have conducted analyses in the past on similar logs voluntarily disclosed by financial agencies on rulemaking for the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. But while it is commendable that the CPSC makes these logs public, like those at the financial agencies, the format varies widely, ranging from handwritten lists like this one to pdfs like this one. There was no standardization and no easy way to put thse into a spreadsheet to figure out who was attending these meetings the most.

So Jake Harper, a Sunlight fellow, and I went to work, typing these records into a database by hand. After doing some standardization of company names and some sleuth work we were able to code these participants by type, such as "industry," and "ngo" for "non governmental organization." A pattern quickly emerged: industry attendees far outweighed nongovernmental advocates, and ExxonMobil, its lawfirm Latham and Watkins, and the American Chemistry Council, fierce advocates for the safety of phthalates, participated the most.

Of course we'd far prefer that federal agencies not only make such information public but do so in a downloadable, machine readable format. Sunlight was able to marshall the resources to do the data entry in this case, but we can't in every case, nor do we think we or others should have to do so.

So: a story found sideways from a Scout regulatory alert that led to an interesting story about how regulatory sausage is influenced after laws are passed, and which showed how a government agency that does better than most in making information public could still improve. Plastics.

You may have heard the old adage that “money is the mother’s milk of politics,” but money also has a lot to do with the politics of mother’s milk.

Last week Rep. Michele Bachmann, R., Minn., criticized Michelle Obama for announcing that she would work to encourage breastfeeding as part of her campaign against childhood obesity, accusing the First Lady of encouraging a “new definition” of a “nanny state.”

What was missing from the stories that followed, however, was that the powerful infant formula industry has tremendous influence in Washington, with PACs, employees and their family members of the three biggest producers donating $1 million to federal candidates and party committees in the 2010 election cycle and the companies themselves disclosing lobbying spending of $9 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

That influence pays dividends. Late last year, the industry’s high powered lobbyists managed to keep a provision out of the child nutrition bill that would have required new additives to infant formula to undergo scientific review to determine whether they are actually beneficial to babies.

Taxpayers had a stake in the proposal—the federal government is the biggest national purchaser of infant formula through the federal Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, which provides it to low-income women who prefer to formula feed their babies. While the industry offers rebates to state governments that provide the formula, the program still costs taxpayers some $850 million a year.

A recent study by the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which operates the WIC program, pointed out that recent rising costs in the program were partly because the cost of formula has gone up—the estimate is $91 million—largely because manufacturers have started including additives such as the fatty acides docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA). As Ruth Marcus reported for the Washington Post last July, when Congress reauthorized WIC in 2004, not long after infant formula manufacturers started including these ingredients in formula, language was inserted telling states that when they solicited bids for infant formula, they could not require manufacturers to include or omit specific ingredients.

The industry says that these ingredients mimic ingredients naturally found in breast milk and that they help enhance brain development in infants. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notes that the scientific evidence is mixed. Because infant formula is regulated as a food, rather than a drug, the FDA is charged with ensuring that such additives are safe (the agency says DHA and ARA are) but not whether they actually work.

Last year, both the House and Senate versions  of the child nutrition bill that passed out of committee contained different provisions that would have enhanced the USDA’s power to consider science on whether new additives or “functional ingredients”—are beneficial for babies. (While DHA and ARA are in most infant formulas now, and are unlikely to be removed, manufacturers continue to find and add new ingredients to their products.) This provision was championed by such groups as the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the California WIC Association.

Infant formula and additives manufacturers called on lobbyists to help out. For example, Martek Biosciences, a Maryland-based additives manufacturer, reported spending $600,000 in 2010 to hire a dozen lobbyists at firms such as Patton Boggs and McDermott, Will and Emery. Company executives have also contributed $31,280 to federal candidates and parties in the 2010 election cycle, giving to both Democrats and Republicans.

One of the hired lobbyists, Lanny Davis, a former Clinton Administration official, sent around an email to Capitol Hill offices claiming that the legislation was being pushed by “lactivists” who want to force women to continue breastfeeding, the New York Times reported last December.

Meanwhile, the three giant infant formula manufacturers that supply 90 percent of infant formula in the United States also had a stable of lobbyists at their disposal and a history of ample campaign contributions. Abbott Laboratories reported spending $5 million lobbying in 2010; Nestle, $3.8 million; and Mead Johnson Nutritionals, $185,000. The three companies together contributed $1 million in the 2010 cycle to candidates and party committees.

In the end, Congress dropped the provision before passing the child nutrition bill on December 13. It wasn’t the first time that the infant formula industry had pulled its weight in Congress—and it likely won’t be the last.

Correction: Due to an error at OpenSecrets.org, an earlier version of this post misreported that Mead Johnson Nutritional is a subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Bristol-Myers Squibb spun off the company in 2009. The lobbying and campaign finance numbers in this post have been corrected, and OpenSecrets.org is also correcting its data. In addition, higher infant formula costs due to functional additives is partly, not largely, the driver of increased costs for the WIC program.

Six months old today, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act provided vast new powers for federal regulators to collect information on financial institutions—information that could be crucial in staving off future crises, some vital elements to be released publicly. Yet the machinery of government grinds slowly, and the public has yet to see much of it.

• President Barack Obama has yet to appoint a director for the  Office of Financial Research, a new Treasury office that has been called the “CIA of financial regulators” because of its far-reaching power to gather data and information on financial institutions. The office, which is supposed to supply data and analysis for the also newly created Financial Stability Oversight Council, is also required to produce several public databases to help track financial instruments. So far the office’s main action was in November, when it published a proposed policy statement in the Federal Register on creating universal identifiers for a particular legal entity that takes part in a financial transaction.

• Bizarrely, the federal government has no way of tracking foreclosure rates. Even the General Accountability Office relied on private data sources to do  analysis of the foreclosure crisis. The new law mandates that the department of Housing and Urban Development create a new public database tracking foreclosures. However, an agency spokesman, Brian Sullivan, says the department faces legal and resource issues and that the database may be as many as three years in the making—even as the national scandal over banks employing robo-signers on loans continues to unfold.

• One of the major transparency provisions of the new law is to bring trading of derivatives—or swaps—into transparency, by requiring that such trades be reported publicly in “real-time”. The Commodities Future Trading Commission (CFTC) published proposed rules for “real-time” reporting in December. While the law requires that the final rules be published by July, the agency notes that “participants will need a reasonable amount of time in which to acquire or configure the necessary systems,” and says that some of the reporting is not expected to be made public until January 2012.

These are just a few examples from the vast world of financial regulation where vital public information is slow in coming. In the coming months, the Sunlight Foundation will be tracking closely the tender transparency points in the way our government regulates financial industries, as well as the lobbying forces that help sway the government’s actions. Stay tuned.

Over the last several weeks, the Colorado Senate race became the poster race of the outrageous amounts of money pouring into politics from outside groups, attracting more than $32 million in spending--more than any other race in the country. A close look at the data reveals some telling points on how this political spending worked on the ground.

What was new this year in Colorado was not outside spending. In 2008, the Colorado Senate race also attracted money from outside groups, such as 527 political organizations and labor unions. And many of the groups spending in 2010 also were in the fray in 2008, albeit some wearing different legal costumes. A good chunk of the money spent this year was in the form of "dark money"--money spent by groups that do not disclose donors; however, the major group doing so also took out its wallet in 2008.

What was new was a substantially higher amount of spending--$32 million vs. $20.4 million; a harder edge on many of the group’s ads; and that groups could (and did) raise their cash directly from corporations and unions for such ads.

Here are some notable trends from Colorado:

• The biggest gorilla in the room. American Crossroads, the “super PAC” founded this year with the help of GOP strategist Karl Rove, bet big in Colorado. A creature of the new regime after the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, American Crossroads reported spending $5.9 million on independent expenditures in the Senate race to help Buck’s candidacy. That’s more than twice as much as any other non-party organization, and one-and-a-half times as much as Ken Buck raised for his own campaign. It wasn’t all that long ago that this kind of money was enough to win a Senate seat. The group has raised its cash from a mix of wealthy individuals and corporations—the latter of which would have been impossible before Citizens United.
• Lots of “Dark money.” Some $5.4 million of the money flowing into Colorado was “dark money”—money spent by organizations that do not publicly disclose donors to the Federal Election Commission. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a 501(C)6 organization, reported spending $2.4 million on issue ads. Back in 2008, the group reported $1.5 million. The conservative Americans for Job Security, a 501(c)6, reported spending $976,000 on issue ads in the race (a substantial portion in the primary). Women's Voices Women Vote Action Fund, a 501(c)4, reported spending $878,500. Technically the money went to issue ads rather than to oppose or support a candidate. However this clip is openly critical of Buck for saying that voters should choose him because he doesn’t “wear high heels.”  Nonprofit groups like these have been emboldened this year to spend more aggressively on political activity; some members of Congress and watchdog groups have called for investigations.
• Meet the new folks, (sort of) the same as the old folks. The NEA Advocacy Fund reported making $1.9 million on hard-hitting independent expenditures opposing Buck. The group’s main source of cash appears to be its parent organization, the National Education Association. Spending on direct advocacy ads funded by unions would not have been possible before Citizens United. While the union also reported spending big in the 2008 Senate race here--$925,000—most of that money went to electioneering communications, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Ditto the conservative Club for Growth Action, a new super PAC that reported spending $997,000 on issue ads. In 2008, most of the money reported by the group under a different guise went to issue advocacy. Overall, 15 out of 22 of the most generous outside spenders in the Colorado race used their cash for independent expenditures rather than issue ads.

What effect all this spending had on the actual outcome of the race is debatable. Bennet raised far more cash for his campaign fund than Buck did for his. The independent expenditures favored Buck, but not by a large margin. In the end, the Bennet’s victory was decided by fewer than 16,000 votes.

But one thing is for sure: the onslaught of spending here was like going back to Colorado’s Wild West roots. All these groups were grabbing for the biggest gun in town, and the sheriff wasn’t paying much attention. And it was just practice for what we can expect come 2012. As goes Colorado, so goes the nation.

Denver, Colorado...With the Senate race here considered closest in the nation, local officials are bracing for the possibility of needing to do a recount post-election.  The Senate race also continued to be the focus of most of the ads during the half hour of news I watched on channel 4 (CBS) this morning. Of the 11 ads I saw, five focused on the Senate campaign, and of those, three were paid for by outside groups--American Crossroads and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC).

8:26 a.m.: from Democrat Rep. Ed Perlmutter's campaign: Frazier had a poor attendance record in office, his company helped outsource jobs. Sunlight CAM link here.

Democrat Rep. Betsy Markey points out that her opponent, Cory Gardner, has had to pull some of his attack ads for inaccuracy. Sunlight CAM link here.

8:28 a.m.: Michael Bennet campaign ad says that Ken Buck doesn't care if jobs are outsourced to other countries. See Bennet ads on Sunlight CAM link here.

8:48 a.m. Michael Bennet voted for Obama's failed stimulus; he was the deciding vote on "Obama-care." He's "their senator not ours." This one is from American Crossroads, which has spent more than $5.1 million on independent expenditures opposing Bennet; most recently it reported a $646,000 media buy on October 26.

The Ryan Frazier campaign says that the first two years of "change" have brought record deficits and corrupt politicians.

The NRSC runs a positive ad for Ken Buck, saying he has "deep Colorado roots," who will say "no" to reckless spending. In an echo of the negative American Crossroads ad above, the tag line is "He'll be our senator, not theirs." The NRSC has reported spending $4.2 million on ads opposing Bennet and $912,000 on ads supporting Buck. Where does the NRSC get its money to run such ads? Not from Colorado. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, top donors this election cycle--all giving more than $200,000--include the New York hedge firm Elliott Management, Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs, and Texas developer Perry Homes.

8:53 a.m.: Ken Buck's kids aren't as young as Bennet's but they still can do cute campaign ads. In this ad from the candidate's campaign, daughter Kaitlin, says her dad coached her brother Cody as well as her. Now Cody is at West Point, and Kaitlin is at Clemson. They're helping their dad's campaign, and it's not easy with all the negative ads. "Dad's always been there for us; he'll be there for Colorado too."

8:54 a.m.: Betsy Markey has voted with Nancy Pelosi 94 percent of the time! This ad from Cory Gardner has gotten very heavy air play, at least during my watch.

From the Ryan Frazier campaign, an ad saying he'll "restore common sense to Washington."

8:56 a.m. The NRSC ad on Buck and his "deep Colorado roots." See 8:48 a.m.

8:59 a.m. From the Betsy Markey campaign, an ad saying don't believe what you hear attack ads. Markey says "I have zero tolerance for Wall Street bailouts."

To see all installments of "Swing State Confidential," click here.

Denver, Colorado...With five days to go before Election Day, outside spending on Colorado's Senate race is now over $30 million, still top in the country. By far the biggest non-party outside spender here is American Crossroads, the newly formed "super PAC" that gets fundraising and advice from GOP political operative Karl Rove, which has reported spending a staggering $5.6 million. That's one-and-a-half times as much as would-be senator Ken Buck has collected for his campaign fund.

So it's no surprise that today's harvest of political advertisements, this time from viewing a half hour of morning news on channel 9 (NBC), includes an offering from American Crossroads, as it has most days. Today I saw eight advertisements; five were bought by candidates' campaigns, one by American Crossroads, and two by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC).

Here's what I saw:

8:26 a.m. From the Betsy Markey campaign, an ad calling out her opponent Cory Gardner's attacks as a "disgrace" and pointing out that some of his ads were pulled from the air. (Gardner revised an ad against Markey after her campaign complained that it referenced her votes incorrectly, confusing her with Rep. Ed Markey, D., Mass.) Sunlight CAM links on Markey here.

8:29 a.m. The NRSC presents Ken Buck as a husband and father with "deep Colorado roots," who has said no to reckless spending and is a strong advocate for business. See Sunlight CAM link here.

8:34 a.m. From Cory Gardner campaign, ad says Betsy Markey has voted with Nancy Pelosi 94 percent of the time. Have seen this one lots.

8:36 a.m. Another shot from the NRSC, this ad saying, “Bennet is pushing for Obama’s over-reaching agenda.” The Denver Post referred to him with the phrase “not enough spine.” This one has been airing a lot.

8:41 a.m. The John Salazar campaign says his opponent, Scott Tipton supports radical budget, is no match for Salazar, who has looked out for his district and is a "good match." Sunlight CAM link here.

8:48 a.m. American Crossroads comes on with its ad proclaiming the Bennet is too close to Obama, that he was the deciding vote for "Obama-care," and ends with the tagline "Their senator, not ours."

8:49 a.m. Markey with her ad decrying Gardner's "negative acts," saying she has "zero tolerance for Wall Street bailouts."

8:58 a.m. Bennet is a businessman who has saved jobs, while Ken Buck is ok with jobs going overseas. This one is from the Bennet campaign.

To see all installments of "Swing State Confidential" click here.

Denver, Colorado...Today's yield of political ads delivered along with a half hour of morning news  (KDVR FOX 31) includes a half dozen ads. Two were sponsored by outside groups--American Crossroads and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The rest came from candidates' campaigns.

8:24 a.m. Senate candidate Ken Buck is running this ad a lot. “We protested when goverment ran up debt, sent emails when they nationalized health care, we asked them to get off backs of small business, pleaded to secure our border. They heard us but they ignored us. On Nov. 2 they will ignore us no more.”  Sunlight CAM link here.

8:29 a.m. American Crossroads, which has reported spending $5.1 million so far opposing Sen. Michael Bennet, including a $646,000 buy just yesterday, runs an ad claiming Bennet is close to President Barack Obama. "Obama needs Bennet." The tag line is: "Their senator, not ours." Sunlight CAM link here.

8:45 a.m. From the campaign of Rep. Ed Perlmutter, an ad claiming Frazier missed work  Sunlight CAM link here.

8:47 a.m. Another run of the Buck campaign ad about Washington "ignoring us no more." (See 8:24 a.m.)

8:59 a.m. Betsy Markey votes with Nancy Pelosi 94 percent of the time, from the Cory Gardner campaign. I have seen this one a lot. Sunlight CAM link here.

9:00 a.m. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has reported spending $4.1 million opposing Bennet so far; earlier this week the party committee reported $863,000. Today's ad says “Bennet is pushing for Obama’s over-reaching agenda.” The Denver Post referred to him with the phrase “not enough spine.” I've seen this one before, too.

To see all the installments of my Swing State Confidential diary, click here.

Denver, Colorado...Two kinds of non-disclosure popped up in my half hour of TV news viewing this morning in Denver, ground zero for this year's outside spending spree on political ads. One was an issue ad by the Chamber of Commerce, which famously does not disclose its donors; the other was an issue ad by American Action Network, which not only does not disclose its donors, but also has yet to report its spending in Colorado to the Federal Election Commission.

(Edited to add: As of October 27, the American Action Network's (AAN) spending in Colorado now show up on FEC reports: $725,000 dated October 12. Also on October 27, the Denver Post reported that channel 9 (NBC) is pulling the AAN ad recorded in this diary for false claims.)

Of nine ads viewed in half an hour on channel 7, ABC, two were funded by outside groups, three by party committees, and four by candidates' campaign funds. Here is what I saw:

8:28 a.m. The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) takes one of its many hits on Sen. Michael Bennet. This time the ad says "Bennet is pushing for Obama's over-reaching agenda." The Denver Post referred to him with the phrase "not enough spine." The NRSC has reported spending nearly $4 million on ads opposing Bennet, which is more than Buck has collected for his campaign fund. Sunlight CAM link to ads mentioning Bennet here.

8:41 a.m. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) goes after Ryan Frazier, who is challenging incumbent Democrat Rep. Ed Perlmutter, claiming that in his business dealings he's helped send jobs overseas. The DCCC has recently started spending in this district, which has recently become competitive, at the expense of helping Rep. Betsy Markey, who is facing off against Cory Gardner. See Sunlight CAM links for Frazier here.

8:42 a.m.  Here's the issue ad from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, criticizing Michael Bennet for voting for "Obama-care." "Bigger government, less choice, more pain." "Call Michael Bennet and tell him that's not the kind of change we were looking for." The Chamber of Commerce has reported spending $1.9 million on the Bennet race; the group does not publicly disclose its donors.

Next up is the American Action Network (AAN), with an issue ad on Perlmutter. A woman appears on a computer screen; she's skyping her friend. "You have to check out the article I just sent you. Apparently convicted rapists can get Viagra paid for by the new health care bill....Yep. I mean Viagra for rapists? With my tax dollars?" The viewer is asked to call Perlmutter and ask him to repeal the health care bill.  As I reported over here, AAN has yet to disclose its spending in Colorado, and, as a 501(c)4 organization, also does not have to publicly disclose its donors. See AAN ads on Sunlight CAM here.

8:48 a.m. A tried and true ad from the Cory Gardner campaign, which I've seen many times before, saying that Markey has voted with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "94 percent of the time."

8:49 a.m. An ad from the Bennet campaign criticizes Ken Buck for supporting sending jobs overseas.

8:53 a.m. The NRSC repeats its "not enough spine" ad about Bennet. (See: 8:28 a.m.)

8:54 a.m. Another old one from the Markey v. Gardner matchup, an ad from the Markey campaign urging viewer not to listen to the attacks on her. She says she's got "zero tolerance" for Wall Street bailouts and voted to stop Congressional payraises.

8:58 a.m. Bennet goes for cute with this ad featuring his daughters, who are working on "getting out the vote" for his campaign. They offer to help out an older woman and give her a ride in a wagon.