A search using our Influence explorer, for Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, reveals that between 2003-2010, the governor received a total $32,131,191 in donations.  The tool, that provides itemized contributions reported by political candidates to the Federal Election Commission and state agencies, gives you details of donations down to the exact change. And where as some may not care about the loose change, it is the unlimited money flowing in from individuals and Political Action Committees, that prompted Gov. Corbett's predecessor, Gov. Ed Rendell, to put campaign finance reform, top on his do list. But not before he raised over $30 million in his 2006 re-election. The back peddling on the state's campaign finance reform has forced several groups including the Pennsylvania Association for Government Relations to rally behind enforcing limits on campaign contributions. Unfortunately, some officials are  not taking the law seriously...

• Campaign finance laws are starting to take precedence in some states, but according to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania’s 9th District city councilor, Ricky Burgess, that doesn’t matter. Burgess recently failed to file his campaign finance report on the grounds that no one observes the laws controlling them and is trying to change those laws: he’s introduced legislation that would repeal Pittsburgh’s campaign finance reforms. In Chris Potter’s opinion, the councilman’s act of protest undermines the law, especially when there is no proof that the law is meaningless. You can check out Potter’s suspicions of conflict of interest in his chronicle of the city’s controversial campaign finance reforms on Slag Heap.

• Oregon’s reputation for making public records available is set to get even better. The state’s Attorney General John Kroger has proposed a new bill that would centralize records laws and remove close to 100 existing exemptions. The Senate Bill 41 will subject state and local government agencies to deadlines for submitting public records while limiting the fee charged to access these records. Dave Fiskum adds that this may cause controversy, especially among the League of Oregon Cities, which is already expressing concern about being able to meet the deadlines. Read how opposers of this bill -- in retaliation -- have proposed Senate Bill 346 and House Bill 2043 that will bar media from accessing 911 calls and create further exemptions respectively on Oregon Insider.

• In a recent video, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is asking for a “sweeping ethics reform” to require legislators to disclose who they represent before the state. In a call to clean up Albany and restore public trust in government, Cuomo reached out to New Yorkers and urged them to ask their legislators to pass ethics reforms that clarify who they are working for and for how much. Only then will the state regain its history of being diligent in fighting corruption. Jon Campbell shares more of the governor’s web video and transcript on Politics on the Hudson.

• A new bill that will reduce the fine for violating public records act -- dropped from $5 dollars to $0 per day -- has been approved by Washington’s Governor, Chris Gregoire. Supporters of this bill have praised it saying it will eliminate the insincere use of the state’s Public Records Act while others, including the Washington Coalition for Open Government, opposed it saying public agencies would not have to pay any fees if they followed the law. The Governor, who is a renown open government advocate, stands by the bill and feels that public agencies should not pay any fees because this burden ultimately falls on the tax payer. Political reporter Jared Paben’s post invokes interesting comments including a concern that violators of the act should be given at least a slap on the wrist instead of a free pass. More on Politics Blog.

• OpenGov West (where our very own Nicole Aro is today) has been coined as a conference where “governments & the public come together to discuss open government, transparency, collaboration and participation.” Appearing on the panel on Usability: Strategies for revamping government websites for transparency, accessibility and ease of use, is Gordon Ross who thinks government can learn from interaction designers . Bryan Robertson explains that this conference’s mission is to view knowledge as power because it provides citizens with tools to help them make informed decisions. Read details on Open Road.

Copies of the SOTU speech are now circulating and there are several things in it that Sunlight is extremely happy about.

First, the President will call for the establishment of a single Congress-wide database so that all of us can track earmarks. A state-of-the-art, user-friendly online database, one that allows users to search, sort, and download machine-readable data, will spur more citizen interest and involvement  -- and accountability -- in federal budgetary questions.

Sunlight has long advocated transparency to ensure that earmarks reflect the public interest. There is a long history of members abusing earmarks, requesting funding to build bridges to nowhere and to reward political allies, family members and even for personal enrichment. These abuses were most prevalent when there was little transparency in the process. Until 2007, members did not disclose which earmarks they requested, recipients were not named and individual earmarks were scattered throughout a dozen or more congressional committee documents that totaled hundreds of pages.

While the last two Congresses have improved earmark disclosure, it’s still impossible for a citizen to find, in a single place, all the relevant information about the projects their elected lawmakers request before votes are taken on them. What the President is requesting -- a centralized database with information posted before final decisions are made -- is a much-needed change.

Second, the President is calling for more complete disclosure by lobbyists when  they are lobbying the White House or Congress. Under his plan, each contact would be reported, presumably with enough specificity to be meaningful.  Sunlight believes strongly that such disclosures should be made electronically, published promptly and maintained online in a downloadable, searchable, sortable format. We believe that disclosure should include all legislation and regulations discussed and all requests for specific services or government funding. Legislative contacts should be reported within 24 hours of any meeting. In addition, the requirement that contributions by registered lobbyists be reported semiannually should be amended to require contributions be reported within 24 hours of being made.

And third, the President calls for fixes to the campaign finance system in the wake of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. We believe that this decision certainly calls for an immediate update to the entire campaign finance disclosure law regime — covering everything from who has to disclose, what is required to be disclosed, how often, and in what form – whether the spending comes directly from corporations’ or unions’ treasuries, from lobbyists, political parties or the candidates themselves. Clearly, now more than ever, our entire system of public disclosure of election-related contributions and expenditures needs to be upgraded to keep pace with the influences it is designed to track. And with the technical capacity we now have in this 24/7 world, this means that disclosures must be filed online, in real time.

We applaud the President for making these new initiatives and stand ready to consult with Congress and the administration to find the best technical means to accomplish these goals.

Excerpts from the Speech below:

Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time for something new. Let's try common sense. Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's meet our responsibility to the people who sent us here.

To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust - deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.

That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why - for the first time in history - my administration posts our White House visitors online. And that's why we've excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.

But we cannot stop there. It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or Congress. And it's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign companies - to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.

I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. You have trimmed some of this spending and embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. Tonight, I'm calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single Web site before there's a vote so that the American people can see how their money is being spent.

The ramifications of today’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC are breathtaking – opening the floodgates of political money such as we have never seen before.  If you thought Congress was ‘for sale’ to the highest bidder, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Nothing less than a fundamental rethinking of our campaign finance laws is demanded as a result of today’s decision.

But one thing becomes immediately clear: Transparency about the flow of campaign cash – online and in real time – became more important. While we do not think that transparency is a panacea for the horrific consequences of today’s decision, it is critically important as the shredded system is rebuilt.

Today’s decision underscores the necessity of creating comprehensive real-time disclosure for all election spending – across the board -- from when and how often candidates, individuals and PACs report their contributions and expenditures to those involved in independent expenditures, issue ads or direct election advocacy.

Others will opine about what the Court wrote about lifting the limits and other related matters that were at the heart of this case, but we want to focus on the disclosure aspects of this case.

The Majority wrote:

With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests…This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.

The Court goes on to note the Internet’s importance when it comes to meaningful disclosure, saying that “modern technology makes disclosures rapid and informative…A campaign finance system that pairs corporate independent expenditures with effective disclosure has not existed before today.”

True enough, but the disclosure system they describe doesn’t yet exist. The current disclosure system is insufficiently “rapid and informative” and does not make effective use of modern technology.

As a result of this decision, there will be tidal wave of corporate campaign expenditures. The systems for disclosure will have to come into the 21st century. Everything has to be reported online. All related campaign expenditures, including the new wave of issue ads, and independent expenditures and direct electioneering must be disclosed within 24 hours, with the names and addresses of anyone who has given more than $200 in support of the ad disclosed online. In fact, there should be 24-hour online reporting of all contributions of more than $200. The quarterly reporting system now in place is outdated and ineffective—ridiculous, in a word.

There is more to this case that deserves analysis, and more will come from Sunlight. We could go on and on about how wrong-headed Justice Thomas’ no-disclosure dissent is. We need to watch out that the court doesn’t use the guise of “protecting donors from harassment” as an excuse to limit disclosure.

But in the meantime, this decision should trigger momentum toward ensuring that all election-related information is available online in real-time. Disclosure remains a crucial antiseptic to the corrupting influence of money in politics. We should ensure our system is as transparent as possible.

We’ll have more to say, later today.