A Connecticut bill has been making the rounds in transparency circles recently: HB 5556, a toothy, bipartisan approach to corporate and union campaign financial disclosure, introduced as the state’s response to Citizens United. It quickly passed the CT House 94 - 57 and the Senate 20 - 15 on May 8th, and now all eyes are on Governor Dan Malloy to see whether he’ll veto the bill or sign it into law this week. Although Malloy authored the original text, the bill has been significantly beefed up since it left his office and entered the Government Administration and Elections Committee -- so much so that Malloy’s office has been resistant to showing their support.

But they should get over themselves. It’s refreshing to see a state legislature take such a dedicated approach to campaign finance disclosure reform, especially in an election year. Here’s a round-up of some of the bolder transparency-related measures CT legislators are trying to pass with HB 5556:

• Super PACs and other 501(c)s engaged in campaign-related activity would have to...
• Report all donations over $1000 and publish the names and addresses of these donors on the organization’s website.
• Report any transfer of funds marked for political activity, including the full name and addresses of all individuals involved in making the donation and transfer -- even when the receiving end is another organization. (Translation: Say goodbye to shadowy front groups and intermediaries...)
• Corporations, unions, and other legally organized bodies would have to have their boards pre-authorize each and every campaign-related disbursement over $4000 through a vote. Votes of individual members and the resulting expenditures would then need to be published on the organization’s website within 48 hours of voting.
• All political ads would be required to not only list the top five donors at the end of the ad (strengthening current “Stand by Your Ad” provisions), but to also include a URL pointing to a website where people can see all the organization’s donors -- including the names and addresses of every donor who gave more than $1000.

This isn’t an exhaustive list of HB 5556’s provisions, but these requirements speak to the boldness of Connecticut’s approach. In fact, many of the measures listed above are kin to those in the DISCLOSE Act, a Sunlight-supported federal campaign finance bill currently languishing in Congress.

HB 5556 isn’t a perfect bill (note the strange rider about military voting and the potential "chilling" of grassroots/citizen lobbying near election day), but as far as its approach to transparency measures are concerned, it should be commended and seriously considered as a (constitutional) solution to a problem faced by states everywhere, at time when reform is needed most.

• According to open government advocates, Maryland does not do a good enough job of making government information easy for citizens to find online on the state’s website. Despite Governor Martin O’Malley’s stated commitment to increasing Maryland’s digital transparency, these open government advocates claim O’Malley’s administration has lagged behind in making “raw data held by state agencies available to citizens who want to evaluate the performance of state government — and O’Malley’s administration — on their own.” David Moore, executive director of the open government advocacy group the Participatory Politics Foundation, maintains, “What’s happening in the government should be public. Transparency in the process increases trust among the wider percentage of citizens and when civic trust is built up, then there’s more engagement.” For the whole story, check out Brooke Auxier’s post on Maryland Reporter.

The U.S. Public Interest Research Group released a score card that gave Connecticut an F in spending transparency. The score card based its ranking on the state's Checkbook-level website which contained vendor's estimates of goods and services, but not actual payments they received.  A look at the implementation of their Economic Development Incentives and Grants program, showed that there was detailed information on recipient-specific grants that allowed a visitor to determine the purpose of the specific expenditure, but there was no information that allows a visitor to determine the purpose of the program or information on economic development incentives. It is therefore noteworthy that Connecticut took the research group's advice and created a website to show how they are using the tax payers' money.

• An official website with down-loadable data containing Connecticut’s spending has been launched. TransparencyCT.gov shows total expenditures by account, fund and line item for each fiscal year. Last year, the state’s then Governor, Jodi Rell, signed legislation that would enable the creation of a searchable state budget database. A year later, Brian Lockhart writes that now the remaining challenge is to meet the deadlines for submitting data for this website. For more, check out Political Capitol.

• Concerned lawmakers are planning to introduce legislation that will cut down on the secrecy in Ohio’s government. Sparked by the blatant disregard of public meetings laws and lobbyists who are now writing legislative language, the lawmakers are drafting HB 113 and HB 294 which will respectively, give taxpayers a right to know and specify any form of communication between lobbyists and legislators, as a meeting.  However,Trent Dougherty is proposing a more definitive solution -- which is to create a Statehouse Accountability and Public Empowerment Act. Read on about the Act which could provide for more openness through the use of technology on Ohio Environmental Law Center.

• Wisconsin has introduced a proposal that could amend their constitution and open meetings law. The proposal will close a loophole that currently allows legislators to violate open meetings laws by not providing (enough) public notice of a meeting. Created by House Rep. Jon Richards and Peter BarcaIt, the amendment if approved will also make legislators subject to citations and civil penalties for violating the law. Mark Piper contacted the office of the Assembly Speaker, to find out what he thought about the proposal but he got no response. How is this affecting transparency? Read more as he predicts the states sunshine laws on Love is a Verb.

• Liberty Leaders -- a project of Illinois Policy Institute --  has developed a checklist to help residents in Bureau county, Illinois to access the county’s financial information. The 10 point transparency checklist identifies lobbying, budget and public records  as some of the information a county website should provide. Mark Cavers is showing how citizens can rally for more transparency using the checklist on Liberty Leaders.

The Hartford Courant published a story today profiling the spokesmen for the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition in Connecticut. SEBAC negotiates health insurance and pension agreements with the state of Connecticut for at least 13 other state unions including as the American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees.

SEBAC deals mainly with the interests of state employees, but the organizations it provides services for have shown a lot of interest in both state and federal-level politics. Here’s a look at the influence profiles of some of the entities mentioned in the Connecticut paper’s piece:

• The American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees gave nearly $12 million in campaign contributions to people running for governor and other state-level political offices during the 2009-2010 election cycle. The union also spent more than $10 million in independent expenditures both supporting and opposing federal-level candidates during that same election cycle.
• The American Association of University Professors only gave $8,800 in campaign contributions during the 2009-2010 election cycle.
• Dan Malloy, a Democrat and the Governor of Connecticut, received $8.7 million in campaign contributions during the 2009-2010 election cycle.

‘Influence Explored’ takes an article from the day’s headlines and exposes the influential ways of entities mentioned in the article. Names and corporations are run through Sunlight’s influence tracking tools such as Influence Explorer and Transparency Data to remind readers of the money that powers Washington.

In his book, The Art of Access: Strategies for Acquiring Public Records, Charles N. Davis analyzes a study by Michael G. Powell on understanding the culture of government records. Powell's quest to find out if FOIA may obscure more than it clarifies on how to access public records, revealed that the process may produce paranoia. This paranoia is manifested in a bureaucracy from government agencies that feel like the public is out to get them and as for the public, the feeling that the government is up to no good. This study may not have found that FOIA reduces corruption, but it implies that some public officials may get better at hiding public information, posing an even tougher challenge for citizens who do not know how to ferret this information out. But this should not be the case. Davis sums it up by encouraging us to understand the dynamic between people and their government. By so doing, we learn that records custodians are individuals who are part of a systematic tension which we should get skilled at  navigating.

• Freedom of information in Connecticut is in trouble -- at least, according to Mitchell W. Pearlman, the retired 30-year Freedom of Information (FOI) Director for the state. In a new proposed bill that Pearlman had a chance to see, but has not yet been disclosed to the public, FOI will be merged into a super agency with other transparency-focused agencies (including the Office of State Ethics and State Elections Enforcement Commission) to become the Office of  Government Accountability. One of the super agency’s proposed duties would be to create efficiencies by merging similar agencies while seemingly saving the tax payer money. To show how this new proposal will not be saving taxpayers money, but in fact increasing costs, Pearlman breaks it down with the possible outcomes. Jon Lender is putting it all in perspective on Capitol Watch.

• Wes Hare, City manager of Albany, Oregon is seeking “transparency at any cost.” While taking pride in awards for Albany’s open government movement, Hare questions the State Attorney General, John Kroger’s recent proposal to improve transparency by limiting government charges for retrieving public records because he thinks it’s a “cost burden on taxpayers.” His recommendation? Government should be allowed to maintain some control over public records. See how he makes a case for it on We Share.

• A performance based budget bill that will require agencies to set benchmarks and goals and be held accountable for their spending priorities, has been passed in Nevada. The Assembly Bill 248 is part of the state government reform plan to be more transparent, efficient and accountable. While it will give the state’s governor the power to authorize executive agencies to conduct public hearings on the proposed budget, it will also require the posting of performance on the Department of Administration website. Geoffrey Lawrence reveals how this bill is a result of the Nevada Policy Research Institute study, “Better Budgeting for Better Results”. He applauds the Nevada legislature on Write on Nevada.

• A new joint committee on transparency and open government will soon be operational in Maryland. Created through HB766 with Delegate Heather Mizeur as the lead sponsor, the Committee will make recommendations on state transparency goals and policies. Nick Judd talked to Delegate Mizeur who believes the committee can also be used as “a way to make more transparent opportunities for contracting in the state.” Judd asserts that it still remains to be seen where the money to fund this committee will come from, as he details other improvements made by Gov. O’Malley, including his hiring of a state Chief Innovation Officer. He asks whether Maryland is becoming The Open Government State on techPresident.

• The city of Georgetown in South Carolina may have started off on a good note by posting their weekly spending online, but Dan Golden writes that this is no longer so. He writes that the essence of accountability is understanding  that the purpose of publishing spending documents is not just for the taxpayers’ benefit, but for government officials to know that this information is available for the public. Could City Councilman Paige Sawyer have feigned ignorance about the city’s spending information not being made public? Details on The Opinion Blog.

In Connecticut, Red Notes from a Blue State has a post comparing how advanced Florida transparency laws are to Connecticut.

Someday -- hopefully soon -- transparency will come to Connecticut, and it will change the whole political landscape. Transparency opens government of any kind – state, municipal and federal – to as many people as are affected by political transactions, which is to say all citizens of the state. The concept is shockingly simple: Put on the internet all governmental transactions, including pricing, and the flow of information will be enhanced between the government and the people, the government and its vendors, the government and intergovernmental agencies and the government and the media. It is crucial to require that no legislation shall be passed until five days have elapsed after the posting. In this way, any possible disadvantages in bills may be corrected though input provided by watchful citizens. It is often said that the media is our public watchdog, which is true enough. But transparency turns every citizen who has access to a computer into a public watchdog. There are three kinds of transparency: opaque transparency, semi-transparent transparency, and transparent transparency. The opaque version is simply pretense at true participatory democracy; the semi- transparent kind creates the illusion of transparency; and then there is the genuine article. The key to transparency is that (ITALICS) all (END ITALICS) governmental functions should be included in the mix. Would that include teacher contracts or contracts between towns and any vendor that accepts tax money from the state or municipalities? It would. “All” means all. Florida is a true transparent state. According to Florida records, House Bill 971, passed in March of this year “requires the posting of ALL expenditures, regardless of amount, and now requires the posting of all salaries, revenues and agency indebtedness.” The bill “provides access to up-to-date information on state government revenues and expenditures through a single searchable website, accessible on http://www.myflorida.com/.” The website includes information “on the date, amount, and source of each expenditure, affording Floridians an unprecedented level of access to information on government spending.” The bill also establishes “a process for integrating information on local government revenues and expenditures into the Transparency Florida site.”

All states can have laws like this and even go further by not just stopping at a searchable Web site but also having real time disclosure. Connecticut might have a long way to go but it is not in the realm of impossibility. There have been a few bills that would ask the state to set up transparency portals. It is a matter of the governor and legislature knowing that their citizens want this information and more and more that is happening.

Here some great links from around the Web.

Center for Digital Government released the results from its Digital Counties Survey.  See which counties use digital technologies the best.

A few counties in Washington state have launched a video voter guide.   Voters will be able to click on a video and see statements from candidates on the ballot.

Beth Noveck answers a few questions on how the federal open government initiative will help all levels of government.

Sunshine Review links to a new manual on how to form a Citizen's Audit Committee.

New York has launched its own version of D.C.'s Apps for Democracy, NYC Big Apps.

Every week I climb into the depths of the local political blogosphere to find the Sunlight. I use this series to highlight local blogs that do a great job of covering local, state, and congressional political news. This week I have highlights from Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada  and Texas.

Maryland Politics Watch has a list of where to find the earmark requests for Maryland's congressional delegation. The lawmakers from Maryland have requested over$1 billion in earmarks appropriations combined. I wonder if the links go to their transportation earmarks too.

Mississippi's Yall Politics has a post detailing what FedEx has spent on lobbying and how much they have given to former senator Trent Lott's lobbying firm. Apparently FedEx has been lobbying on the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act and the part of the bill that deals with making workers organize with the  International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

In Missouri, Turner Report has a revolving door post about a former state Sen. John Loudon who is returning to the state capitol has a lobbyist.  One of his first clients just happens to be a firm that is run by his wife.

Nevada's Desert Beacon has a great post about the lobbying money around health care.  Blue Cross and Blue Shield apparently spent $1.8 million to date.  With that kind of money floating around there have definitely been a lot of parties happening around health care.

Texas Watchdog has a post highlighting a story about a state Rep. Wayne Christian who apparently wrote an amendment to a bill that would allow only the area of around his beach front property to be developed on.  Apparently in Texas it is illegal to build on public beaches, however, Rep. Christian felt a exemption should be allowed.

A little while ago I posted about Connecticut towns who took their Web sites down because they couldn’t comply with a state requirement to put meeting minutes online quickly. Here is an update from Open Records. One town’s residents decided not to stand for it. Wallingford, CT’s Jason Zandri decided to put up a town Web site himself.

“Sometimes you just have to take matters into your own hands. Wallingford resident Jason Zandri did exactly that.

Zandri spent over 100 hours of his own time to develop a new web site, Wallingford, to pick up where the official town website leaves off. While his site should not be confused with the official town site, he has loaded it with a lot of information not found on the town site, including the minutes of the town meetings, budget info and a list of state lawmakers’ postal and e-mail addresses.”

Incredibly impressive, the internet not only allows citizens to take up the slack when government is having some problems but people can actually improve on what government does from their own home.

Unfortunately there is still a lot of work to be done. (Also from Open Records) Jackson Township, PA has decided not to post meeting minutes online. I believe Board Chairman Dean Moyer summed it up when he said, “Moyer asked the audience if the township is really being run that badly that they need to request public documents. He then said that it is like his mother used to say that sometimes the less you know, the better off you are.”

I wonder if Mr. Moyer realizes that that statement makes me think that transparency is sourly needed in this town. The first thing that needs to happen is a much needed change of attitude.  Transparency should be something government does because it builds trust with citizens.  The Jackson Township should go out of its way to give information to the people they represent instead of making those same people jump through hoops.  

Local governments in Connecticut are encountering issues with a new state mandate that requires “Web sites post public meeting minutes within seven days after the meetings.”  Local governments are finding this new measure difficult because they don’t have the staff to fulfill the requirement and can’t afford to hire more people.  So until they figure out how to fulfill the new requirements they are taking down their Web sites.

I am interested in why Connecticut Web sites, in their current form, are so difficult to edit. This kind of mandate, while inconvenient at first, can challenge local towns to be creative and maybe improve the ways they create Web sites. As well as, how they take minutes and keep records.

How about a wiki for meeting minutes? Live blogging? Video? There is no reason to not use the mandate to find innovative and interactive ways to get citizens involved.