In case you missed it, last night some-time South Carolina Presidential candidate and super PAC founder Stephen Colbert gave a great rundown of the new campaign finance landscape in our elections. Colbert and his team of very sharp writers have smartly illustrated just how out of control our campaign finance system is. In short, it’s crazy: A handful of billionaires pouring incredible amounts of cash is fundamentally changing what our democracy looks like. Colbert’s team doing a great job making sure this news gets outside the Beltway. Watch the video here:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
America's Biggest Super PAC Donors
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

As you’ll see above, Colbert makes the point that these billionaires are doing this out in the open. There’s a little bit of truthiness to that. Yes, super PACs disclose their donors, but there’s plenty we don’t know. That’s because the FEC has done absolutely no work to regulate this new influx of cash. And neither Congress nor the FEC has had the guts to require the real-time, online reporting that would give the public an actual sense of who’s trying to influence their votes. After all, we only just got the super PAC disclosures from last year (!) on Tuesday, and many of the crucial primary elections are already over -- the Republican field is down to just a few left standing. It might have been helpful for voters in those early primary states to know just who was trying to influence them before they cast their votes. And although it’s great that we can name the top 22 donors, there may still be other billionaires who are funneling their money to super PACs through 501c4s, nonprofits which don’t have to tell anyone who their funders are.

Sunlight’s been working on this issue for a while, so we’ve got plenty of info if you’re interested. (Who doesn’t love a little campaign finance disclosure to spice up your Friday?) Our one stop shop for everything you ever wanted to know about super PACs but were afraid to ask is here: http://sunlightfoundation.com/superpacs/. We’ll be continuously updating that page, so make sure to bookmark it and come back.

We also have draft legislation that we think can solve many of the disclosure problems around super PACs, the SUPERPAC Act. We’re writing it out in the open (the way we wish Congress would write legislation) and we welcome your feedback to make it stronger. You can comment on any particular section or on the whole thing. Check it out: http://publicmarkup.org/bill/superpac-act/

The SUPERPAC Act hasn’t been introduced, yet, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt for you to get in touch with your representatives and let them know they should be on the side of transparency, which they could do simply by introducing and/or cosponsoring this legislation.

You can also read more about it, like -- Lisa’s blog post that Colbert showed on-screen and Lee’s analysis of the 22 donors that gave 48% of the presidential super PAC money (with fun charts!).

Our reporting group has also been spending some late nights going through the documents released Tuesday -- and they’re the ones who are tracking the spending so we can give you detailed data.

Want to help shine a light on super PACs in your area? We’ve also got the super PAC sleuth project -- you can check to see if there’s a super PAC in your area, take a picture, and upload it -- and if you want to dig in even further, you can join our Little Sis group, too.

It’s not enough to hope that the 22 billionaires that we know about pick someone we like for our next president (or representative, or senator -- super PACs aren’t limited to presidential contests). It’s up to us to demand transparency and make sure that everyone knows just who is trying to influence our elections.

The New York Times looked at this week’s Super PAC filings with the FEC and demonstrated—again—what we knew would be the result of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision: The specter of hundreds of thousands of dollars of hidden money influencing our elections and those who will be elected.

The times notes that, “some checks came from sources obscured from public view, like a $250,000 contribution to a super PAC backing Mr. Romney from a company with a post office box for a headquarters and no known employees.” But, while the public remains in the dark, it would be naïve to think that the identity of the donor (or donors) of that generous contribution is unknown to Mr. Romney. So, what does he or she want? Favorable tax treatment? Fewer regulations for a pet industry? A bailout? An ambassadorship? It is possible that the money came from a generous citizen who simply believes Romney would be the best man for the job. But the system of secret dark money now in place means the voters will never know.

The Supreme court relied heavily on the theory that transparency would cleanse the unlimited money that would shape our elections as a result of their decision in the Citizens United case, noting, “A campaign finance system that pairs corporate independent expenditures with effective disclosure has not existed before today.” Unfortunately, the Court failed to realize that such a system of disclosure does not yet exist.

There is a solution. Sunlight proposed the SUPERPAC Act as one way to shine more light on the dark money infecting our elections. It would impose a regime of disclosure and disclaimers that would lift the veil of secrecy under which large donors may hide. But Congress needs to act. So far, we’ve heard talk. House Democrats say they will re-introduce a slightly paired down version of the DISCLOSE Act, a bill that failed to be enacted last year. And on the other side of the Capitol, Senator Schumer has promised hearings on disclosure by Super PACs.

These are important steps. (Although, arguably they should have happened well before the election season got under way.) Disclosure legislation is a critical tool in the fight against the undue influence secret money has on our campaigns and our elected officials. Unless Congress acts, we can be sure that we have only seen the tip of the dark money iceberg that is undermining the fundamentals of our democracy.

Today NPR's Planet Money team aired a story about disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s legal lobbying activities (as few of those as there may have been), highlighting how problematic even currently legal lobbying practices are. Also today, the New York Times pointed out some of the huge loopholes in current lobbying law -- Newt Gingrich, for example, isn’t actually a lobbyist, he just spends lots of his time talking to lawmakers about how policy should be made. Y’know, as a historian.

The powerful (and corrupting, as we saw with Abramoff) influence of special interest money in politics can be extremely hard to follow, but better lobbying laws could change that. Lobbying activity is the most tangible means to measure the money and effort that powerful interests are spending to influence lawmakers.

Closing the loopholes that let “historians” like Newt Gingrich act as stealth lobbyists and creating real-time, online disclosure about just who lobbyists are meeting with and what they’re talking about would be a powerful first step to shining a light on who’s actually influencing our lawmakers.

How do we fix it? A good first step, as Daniel wrote the other day, is the Lobbying Disclosure Enhancement Act, introduced by Rep. Quigley. The bill needs your help to get more support in Congress. You can write to your rep right from OpenCongress.org to ask them to co-sponsor the bill. You can also read more about Sunlight’s lobbying recommendations and sign up to get updates on lobbying reform here.

Bill Clinton famously tried to claim he hadn’t lied about his relationship Monica Lewinsky by saying, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.” Newt Gingrich similarly contorts the English language by claiming “I was never a lobbyist.” Perhaps Gingrich’s claim depends on what the meaning of the word “lobbyist” is. If it is the loophole ridden, easily evaded legal definition in the Lobbying Disclosure Act that allows power brokers to avoid registering as lobbyists if they spend less than 20 percent of their time lobbying, then maybe, maybe, Gingrich can claim with a straight face that he was not a lobbyist. But if common sense and Miriam Webster are applied, to lobby means, “to conduct activities aimed at influencing public officials and especially members of a legislative body on legislation.” Under that definition, there can be no doubt that Gingrich was a lobbyist, even if he didn’t fill out the paperwork.

The New York Times today correctly notes that people of Gingrich’s stature never register as lobbyists. It’s time to change that. Former members of Congress who trade their political connections for paychecks must be required register and report as lobbyists so that the public knows who is paying them and what positions they are advocating. Sunlight has long supported legislation that would strengthen the definition of lobbyist by eliminating the 20 percent loophole. The law should be clear. Former members of Congress should not be able to call themselves “consultants,” “strategic advisors,” or “historians,” while taking money from corporate clients to advance their causes on Capitol Hill. They are lobbyists.

Anti-lobbyist barbs will continue to fly this election season because they win easy political points. But instead of accusations and denials, name calling and obfuscation, it’s time for real reform that will capture all who lobby and impose much needed accountability on the system.

Here’s a riddle: What do you call it when someone earns millions of dollars from corporate clients, uses his relationships with the most influential officials in government to pursue those clients’ interests, and even has offices on K Street?

Answer: If you are Newt Gingrich, not a lobbyist.

The Washington Post reports that corporate clients paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the current leader in the Republican primary in exchange for him providing “access to top transformational leadership across industry and government” through his for-profit “think tank.” Apparently they got what they paid for. According to the Post, “Gingrich also bragged about his success in pushing conservative policies and legislation in Washington during his political exile.”

We’ve written many times before about stealth lobbyists, often former Members of Congress who crawl around Capitol Hill and the White House advocating on behalf of fat cat clients, but who skirt disclosure under the lobby laws by claiming they only provide “strategic advice” or spend less than 20% of their time lobbying.

And we’ve advocated—dare I say lobbied—to change all of that.

The specter of Newt Gingrich, former non-lobbyist lobbyist, occupying the White House should galvanize calls for lobbying reform. It’s problematic enough when a former Member of Congress provides his clients with access to his friends and colleagues in the House or the Senate. But if Washington’s revolving door should swing that person into the White House, corporate interests who once paid handsomely for strategic advice will have a direct line to the leader of the country.

The Gingrich example is at the top of the list of why we need a new approach to lobbying disclosure. The most influential people in Washington can easily skirt the rules currently in place. Everyone who is not in that top tier of influence peddlers—including all of the registered lobbyists who follow the rules—should recognize the failure of the current system and work to change it by ensuring that if someone is paid to lobby, they register and report as a lobbyist.

Earlier today, protestors from OccupyDC headed over to the offices of the Podesta Group, a high profile lobbying firm, before joining hundreds (possibly thousands) of other Occupy protesters from across the U.S. in shutting down K Street. There's another #occupy protest planned at the Supreme Court, highlighting the January 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision.

As we’ve written before, we’re excited to see a grassroots movement forming that addresses such wonky issues as campaign finance and lobbying reform. We hope that the Occupy protesters’ concerns on those issues don’t get lost in the coverage of the more colorful aspects of today’s actions. While the Occupy movement has become famous in part for its alleged lack of clear demands, we hope that the media coverage of the protests today highlights the need for real reform to bring transparency to lobbying and campaign finance.

K Street is (in)famous for being the epicenter of lobbying in Washington. In fact, the #OccupyDC group in McPherson Square also calls themselves @OccupyKSt, because ‘the money from Wall Street flows to K Street,’ disproportionately influencing the government. It’s no secret that there’s quite a bit of money around K Street -- we actually mapped the top lobbying firms when we did a teach-in at OccupyDC a while back.

The reality, though, is that we don’t even know where all the money is. For example, loopholes in lobbying registration rules mean that unless you spend 20% or more of your time lobbying, you don’t have to register. So powerful figures, including former congressmen -- like former Senator Dodd who now heads the movie industry’s lobby, or "historians" like former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich -- do not have to register as lobbyists. Which means we can't track their activity. It also means that, in effect, we rely on lobbyists to uphold an honor code of registering when appropriate. That's not a good recipe for public oversight. Sunlight’s been advocating for serious lobbying reform for years -- you can learn more (and join us!) here: http://sunlightfoundation.com/policy/lobbying/

Lobbying disclosure, of course, has been a problem since long before Occupy. The public has a right to know how special interests and lobbying help shape public policy—for better or worse. But it’s getting harder for us to get that information.

Last January, the Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission drastically changed the landscape of our election system by allowing corporations to make unlimited campaign ads—often without disclosing the donors who funded the ads. In the wake of that decision, the FEC has done next to nothing to create transparency, and the DISCLOSE Act, a piece of legislation intended to create disclosure in the wake of Citizens United, failed in the last Congress.

If Congress, the Supreme Court and the FEC are going to make it difficult to follow the money, then it’s imperative for watchdogs and journalists to follow the action. When it comes to knowing who's wielding influence in Washington, that action is lobbying. After last year’s Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission ruling, campaign finance and lobbying disclosure became even more closely linked. How? Lobbyists can—without ever saying a word—threaten that their clients will spend millions on ads if senators or representatives do not do what the lobbyist wants.

Imagine you’re a member of Congress. A lobbyist comes to you representing a powerful corporation and asks for your help on a bill provision. You’re not sure that bill provision best represents the interests of the people in your district, but the lobbyist points out that their client has a Super PAC that is willing to spend millions of dollars running ads in your district -- money that you can’t match. What’s more, because of how weak campaign finance disclosure laws are, that lobbyist might have an army of other corporations or wealthy individuals who also support the bill who could secretly funnel unlimited amounts of money to that Super PAC. What would you do?

Occupy Wall Street got the country talking about economic disparities and corporate accountability. We hope that today’s actions -- the Occupation of K Street -- fuels the conversation about money in politics and the need for reform.

Today’s New York Times reports that Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are concerned about the super secrecy of the Super Committee. It’s refreshing to know we are not alone in our concern that the Super Committee’s work is taking place entirely behind closed doors, but it is frustrating that those with the power to address the secret nature of the proceedings have failed to do so. Congress can legislate transparency. If Members of Congress want a “window” into the Super Committee’s work, as the Times' headline suggests, they must demand it by enacting a bill that would ensure that the recommendations of the Deficit Committee are made public for at least 72 hours before a committee vote.

As of yet, Members of Congress have shown little appetite for mandating Super Committee transparency. HR 2860, the Deficit Committee Transparency Act, would, among other things, require final committee recommendations to be made publicly available, online, for at least 72 hours before a committee vote. Unfortunately, the bill has only five cosponsors in the House and has not been introduced in the Senate. Other Super Committee transparency bills, generally requiring less in terms of transparency than HR 2860, have likewise garnered only token support.

It is not too late for Members who feel shut out of the process to legislate a fix. Quick passage of the Deficit Committee Transparency Act would ensure that the final Super Committee agreement is not shoved down the throats of Members of Congress and the public. Importantly, it would also require disclosure of campaign contributions to and special interest lobbying meetings with Super Committee members. A stand-alone 72-hour bill, while still leaving a lot of information in the dark, would at least ensure the end result of the Committee's secretive work would have a public airing before a final up or down vote.

In the House, rules adopted earlier this Congress require legislation to be made available for three calendar days prior to a vote. Although the rule has been waived or ignored, its passage indicates that Members should have no objection to a 72-hour Super Committee rule. Because Members of Congress have no right to amend the Super Committee’s recommendations to make at least $1.2 trillion in cuts to the federal budget, they should demand the opportunity to weigh in on the cuts while the bill can still be modified.

It was a bill negotiated in secret that brought us the super secret Super Committee in the first place. It’s not too late. Members who are wringing their hands and bemoaning the secrecy of the Committee’s negotiations can still demand transparency.

It seems the Obama administration has decided the time has come to once again flex its ethics muscles. The Office of Government Ethics announced rules that would extend a lobbyist gift ban to all government employees. The Office of Management and Budget issued guidelines to executive branch agencies to prohibit them from allowing lobbyists to sit on federal boards and commissions.

Generally, we like to applaud the administration for making strides to address influence peddling in Washington, but there comes a point where baby steps simply aren’t big enough to reach the heights necessary to really clean up Washington.

It is long past time for this administration to stop focusing on the low-hanging fruit and take the initiative to address the real and dangerous avenues of influence in our political system. Where should they start? How about with a long dormant executive order that would disclose hidden money given by federal contractors to influence elections? The administration has had ready, since at least April, an executive order that would require disclosure of dark money contributions funneled through shadow campaign organizations. The Chamber of Commerce and its allies in Congress objected to the draft executive order when it was leaked and the administration seems to have given up on it.

And where is the president on the opaque Super Committee? When he signed the law (negotiated in secret) creating the powerful deficit cutting committee, he failed at the time to insist that the bill include a single provision requiring the committee to operate in the sunlight. Now that there are legislative proposals that would correct that omission by requiring disclosure of campaign contributions and special interest lobbying meetings, the administration has remained silent rather than encouraging speedy passage of the law by Congress.

Finally, there is the whole new specter of unlimited secret corporate money infiltrating elections as a result of the Citizens United. The president came out forcefully against the decision. But when the DISCLOSE Act died in Congress, the administration did not come out in support of a streamlined disclosure-only bill. In fact, just the opposite. Administration cohorts and allies started up their own super PAC to solicit funds from the deepest pockets to pay for ads designed to help with the president’s re-election.

That’s what the administration hasn’t done to address dark money in politics. So what about what it is doing? Are the baby steps going to make a difference? Maybe. But we have to ask whether transparency wouldn’t be a less draconian, more effective way of addressing potential avenues of influence in the executive branch. For example, rather than banning lobbyists from federal boards and commissions, while still permitting bank CEOs, oil executives and labor bosses to sit on those boards, wouldn’t it be better if there were more disclosure of myriad financial interests of everyone on a federal advisory board? And on that OGE gift ban, will non-lobbyist lobbyists be able to make their case while nibbling finger food at conferences with executive branch employees, while lobbyists who register and report are shut out of the process? And while we are at it, does the administration think so little of its executive branch employees that it believes they can be bought for the price of a cheese square on a toothpick and a glass of cheap chardonnay?

The administration’s baby steps would look less like cynical ploy to appear strong on ethics if they were coupled with at least some effort to acknowledge the big picture and the big money that is infecting our political process. It’s time for the administration to grow up.

That lobbyists are influencing Super Committee members is a “dog bites man” story. Corporate lobbyists are eager to earn their hefty retainers by convincing members to save their clients from the chopping block. The real news would be if the Super Committee members disclosed to the public the names of those lobbyists, the clients they represent, and which particular government programs, subsidies or grants the lobbyists want to save.

Sunlight has called for the Super Committee to adopt H.R. 2860, the Deficit Committee Transparency Act, a bill that would require Super Committee members to report, in real time, when they meet with special interests. We also called for Super Committee members to take the simple step of voluntarily reporting their meetings with special interests.

It’s disheartening, to put it mildly, that calls for Super Committee transparency have so far met with a collective shoulder shrug from the very members of the committee who have been given unprecedented power over the nation’s purse strings. Perhaps they are suffering from a raging case of hubris—believing themselves immune from the persuasive powers, not to mention campaign contributions, of corporate special interests. They have demonstrated a complete unwillingness to make their meetings with one another transparent. It is no wonder they want to keep their meetings with special interests secret as well.

But what about their colleagues—the 523 members of the House and Senate whose power was diminished the minute the Super Committee was convened? Why have the appropriations committee chairs and budget committee members, the fiscal hawks and the champions of the social safety net complacently allowed secrecy to become the modus operandi for the Super Committee? They should be outraged that the Super Committee is doing its work behind closed doors. But instead of demanding accountability from their colleagues, they are quietly acquiescing. Only five members of the House have cosponsored the Deficit Committee Transparency Act, and not a single senator has stepped up to even offer the bill in the Senate.

Perhaps they don’t want to offend their colleagues on the Super Committee. Perhaps they hope, if the Super Committee model becomes the norm, to someday also wield extraordinary power in the dark. Or perhaps they are so accustomed to the way Washington does business—with corporate, moneyed special interests having access and influence while the rest of us are shut out of the process—that they don’t even recognize the problem.

It’s time they open their eyes. Members of the House should cosponsor H.R. 2860. Members of the Senate who claim to believe in transparency should introduce the bill. All should call on Super Committee members to demonstrate responsibility and accountability and disclose every meeting they or their staff take on super committee issues.

The drumbeat continues for the twelve members of the Committee on Deficit Reduction to step up and match their newly acquired power with a new-found commitment to transparency. Today, more than a dozen organizations joined Sunlight on a letter to Super Committee members, urging them to voluntarily disclose the campaign contributions they receive from now until the committee completes its work. Just as important, the groups call for members to disclose information about the special interest meetings Super Committee members take while serving on the committee.

The letter noted that failure to ensure transparency of these fundamental avenues of influence will reinforce the public’s mistrust of the deficit reduction process and risk delegitimizing the Committee’s work.

The Committee’s efforts to make its work transparent by creating a website and making some meetings public only go so far. Real access and influence come from large campaign contributions and when special interests meet with members to plead their case. Yet nothing will be disclosed about either lobbying or campaign contributions until well after the committee makes its recommendations. Too late, in other words, for the public to understand or respond to money and access--factors that may play an oversized role in the decision making process of super committee members.

Already the public, as well as members of Congress who do not serve on the Super Committee, are at a disadvantage. The committee has begun working to find ways to make enormous cuts to defense and social spending—cuts that will affect every one of us. Yet there is no disclosure of who is asking the committee members for help or who is writing large checks to committee members. The Committee’s work is too important for secrecy to be an option.

14 Groups Call for Super Committee Transparency