As expected, the Senate passed a watered-down version of the STOCK Act today. We are glad to see new rules banning insider trading by MOCs. It is unseemly, not to mention unfair, for our elected officials to have a financial advantage based on inside information they have as a result of their positions. We hope the new rules are vigorously enforced.

Unfortunately, to pass any bill at all, the Senate decided it needed to drop language that would regulate shady political intelligence firms—groups that use their connections with congressional insiders to get information that they then use to make decisions about investments in the stock market. In February, by a vote of 96-3, the Senate passed a bill that would have called for disclosure by these groups. It’s disappointing that this important reform measure will not become law when the President signs STOCK Act.

The good news is that the issue isn’t dead. We understand that Senators Gillibrand and Grassley, along with a number of others from both sides of the aisle, plan to introduce a bill that would require disclosure by political intelligence firms. (Reps Walz and Slaughter have already introduced similar legislation, the Restore Public Trust Act, in the House.) The same 96 Senators who supported the original STOCK Act should support the new bill, and we will encourage them to do so. No one should be able to trade on their connections with members of Congress to gain an unfair advantage in stock market.

The Federal Election Commission is the supposed enforcer of the nation’s campaign finance and disclosure laws. But, with commissioners evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, the FEC has long lived up to its reputation as being an agency designed to fail. Based on the witnesses it invited to testify about proposed rules regarding disclosure of independent expenditures and electioneering communications, it seems the agency is not only designed to fail, but is setting itself up to do so.

The FEC would probably argue that the five witnesses who testified represented a cross-section of ideas and positions, from the Chamber of Commerce to the AFL-CIO; the Alliance for Justice Action Campaign to the Center for Competitive Politics and the James Madison Center for Free Speech. But in terms of the positions they advanced on whether the FEC has the authority to draft new disclosure rules in light of the Citizens United Case, the group spoke with one voice—and the message they delivered was a resounding “no.”

Eleven U.S. Senators, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeanne Shaheen, Al Franken, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Sherrod Brown, Michael Bennet, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Bernard Sanders and Kirsten Gillibrand, beg to differ. They submitted comments to the Commission urging the agency to “use its rulemaking authority to implement broad disclosure and disclaimer requirements.”

Surely, if it had wanted to, the Federal Election Commission could have found one witness to testify that the agency has the authority to draft new disclosure and disclaimer rules to ensure transparency in post-Citizens United world. It could have found one witness to suggest how the agency could draft rules that would, as the Supreme Court stated in the Citizens United case, “[enable] the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”

In truth, even with a balanced panel of witnesses, the agency probably would have failed to adopt comprehensive disclosure and disclaimer rules. But, by silencing the voices that favor transparency, the FEC willingly abdicated all responsibility to foster open and honest debate.

Correction: The FEC does not have to invite any group to testify, rather, the agency publishes notice "to advise interested persons and to invite their participation." Nevertheless, it seems pro-transparency groups would have received a chilly reception at the hearing. As one FEC commissioner stated, "all discussion of this critical issue [of disclosure and disclaimer rules] was banned from the NPRM." Moreover, Commissioner Weintraub's motion to advance Chris Van Hollen's proposed rulemaking on disclosure of Independent Expenditures by non political committees deadlocked at the FEC while the motion to make rules allowing corporations and unions to make Independent Expenditures passed by a vote of 5-1. It remains that the agency is unwilling to proffer pro-disclosure rules. Hopefully, Congress will pass the DISCLOSE Act, thereby requiring the FEC to act.

The Federal Communications Commission announced a new initiative that demonstrates that the agency understands and welcomes full disclosure. As of June 1, the FCC began requiring that details about ex parte communications—meetings with agency staff where only one side of an issue is present to make its case—must be filed electronically. Not only will transparency at the FCC be improved, but the initiative serves as an example of how transparency should work throughout government.

According to the FCC’s general counsel, “disclosing the contents of oral ex parte contacts on the record ensures that interested parties, the public, and the Commission staff all have complete information about the data and arguments that are presented to Commission decision-makers.”

Makes sense to Sunlight. An ex parte contact at the FCC sounds a lot like a lobbying contact on Capitol Hill. Nothing wrong with it, but details need to be disclosed so that interested parties have a chance to know who is saying what about important public policy issues. We’ve called for improving disclosure of lobbyists contacts by, among other things, including naming the Member of Congress’ office with whom the lobbyist met and providing details of the lobbyist’s request. It sounds a lot like the FCC’s requirement that ex parte notices must list of everyone who participated in the meeting and a summary of all data presented and arguments made.

These types of disclosures will improve the dialogue at the FCC and would do the same for Congress. Fundamentally, lobbyists are educators. More disclosure about meetings would ensure that decision makers have a more complete understanding of all sides of the issue at hand.

Naysayers who say that agency communications are different than lobbying Congress should look to the example of Sen. Gillibrand. She publishes all of her official meetings online the day after they occur. She knows that if a voter sees that she has met with a lobbyist whose views they oppose, they can contact her office to make sure their viewpoints are heard too.

The same principle is at work with the FCC’s ex parte rules. The FCC gets it. Hopefully Congress will too.

They received billions in help from the federal government to stay afloat during the worst days of the financial crisis and they've--mostly--paid it all back since. Now the top six biggest recipients of money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program--the Treasury Department program adopted in 2008 to shore up troubled banks--are contributing to the campaigns of congressional office seekers across the political spectrum.

Of the top fifteen recipients of campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo, five are running for office in New York state, Wall Street's home base, and five are Republican candidates seeking election to the Senate. This is based on data collected from the Center for Responsive Politics.

These six banks were the biggest recipients of money from the bailout fund created by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Bank of America and Citigroup each received $45 billion, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo received $25 billion each and Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley both received $10 billion. Only Citigroup has failed to fully repay the money to the Treasury Department. Citigroup still owes $14 billion.

While the high number of contributions sent to New York pols and key individual lawmakers may be predictable, the presence of a number of Republican candidates seeking to become freshmen senators in the 112th Congress is not. Republicans have successfully used public anger against the bank bailouts to their advantage during the run-up to this fall's midterm elections.

Rob Portman, a former congressman, U.S. Trade Representative and director of the Office of Management and Budget in the George W. Bush administration running for the Senate in Ohio, is the leading recipient of big bailout bank money among GOP Senate aspirants, having raised $97,592 from the six banks.

Portman, who stated he would have voted for the bailout bill, has not run directly against the bailouts, but has taken a position that the bailout money that has been paid back to Treasury should be used to pay down the deficit.

Other GOP Senate aspirants among the top fifteen recipients of big bailout bank contributions include California's Carly Fiorina ($94,850), Illinois' Mark Kirk ($81,275), Delaware's Mike Castle ($66,000) and Missouri's Roy Blunt ($65,642).

Blunt, Castle and Kirk currently serve in the House of Representatives and all three voted in support of the bailout on October 3, 2008. They also all voted against the financial reform bill in 2010.

Fiorina, as a top advisor in the 2008 presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain, defended McCain's support of the bailout bill, but is now running against the bailout. In a recent debate Fiorina attacked her opponent, Sen. Barbara Boxer, for voting for the bailout and receiving campaign contributions from banking executives. The latter attack came despite the fact that Fiorina received more in contributions over the course of 2009-2010 from the six big bailout banks than Boxer.

The top recipient of contributions from the six big banks is Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand with $241,000. Gillibrand is running in her first Senate election after being appointed to take the seat of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Gillibrand has long relied on these big banks to provide funds for her campaigns. All of the banks, save for Bank of America, rank as top career donors to Gillibrand's campaign efforts.

The second-biggest recipient of contributions from these six banks is Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking member on the Senate Committee on Banking, House and Urban Affairs. Over the 2010 election cycle Shelby received $127,050 from the big bailout banks.

While Shelby voted against the bailout legislation in 2008, he played an instrumental role in opposing the financial regulatory bill advocated for by President Obama, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd and House Financial Services Committee chair Barney Frank. Many in the financial sector, particularly the six big banks, opposed pieces of, if not the entirety of, the financial regulatory bill and worked to strip it of as many provisions as possible.

Shelby focused sharply on a provision designed to liquidate firms that were no longer solvent instead of bailing them out with Treasury funds. Shelby declared the liquidation fund to be a proposal for bailout forever and won concessions from the Democrats in the debate over the provision.

The other candidates hailing from New York state include freshman congressmen Scott Murphy ($105,050) and Mike McMahon ($103,350), senior senator and long-time Wall Street booster Chuck Schumer ($99,100) and Reshma Saujani ($88,200), the Democratic primary challenger to Rep. Carolyn Maloney.

Murphy, who won a 2009 special election to the upstate seat formerly occupied by Gillibrand, has long ties to the financial industry having worked for Bankers Trust and Advantage Capital Partners, a venture capital firm. McMahon, whose Staten Island district houses many employees in the financial sector, fought hard for the bank's positions on derivatives during the debate over the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill.

Saujani is the only non-incumbent candidate for the House ranked in the top fifteen recipients of big bailout bank contributions. Earlier this year Saujani, a Wall Street banker, touted her Street cred by stating that she was, "running on my Wall Street record, not from it.” Saujani, in defending Wall Street, said, "Instead of browbeating Wall Street, I want to invite them to help create jobs."

Despite the in flux of contributions from the financial sector that have buoyed her campaign, Saujani suddenly backtracked on her statement that she would not browbeat Wall Street. In a recent debate with Maloney, Saujani attacked the congresswoman for failing to make the financial reform bill tougher and for hosting fundraisers with Wall Street lobbyists during the crafting of the reform bill.

The other four candidates ranking in the top fifteen recipients of big bailout bank contributions include Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ($74,250), Connecticut congressman and former Goldman Sachs banker Jim Himes ($69,320), Senator Richard Burr ($67,680) and Republican Minority Whip Eric Cantor ($66,100).

Burr, Cantor and Reid voted for the 2008 bailout. Himes was elected to Congress in 2008 after the vote had taken place. Both Reid and Himes supported the financial reform bill, while Burr and Cantor did not.

Last weekend more than 2,400 women bloggers descended on New York City for the annual Blogher conference. That was eight times as many as attended back in 2005, in the website’s infancy. The women of Blogher, a website that serves as aggregator and community for thousands of  bloggers, are a varied lot. As I type this the front page features a post on the plight of Hatian orphans, another on the best backpacks for back-to-school, and this one on a new test for Alzheimer's disease.

And then there is politics. The nonpartisan website welcomes views from the left and right and everywhere in between. Blogher's founders, Lisa Stone, Elisa Camahort Page and Jory Des Jardins, have been increasing opportunities for Blogher participants to interact with elected officials. Last weekend's conference brought a visit by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who met with a group of about 25 bloggers (I was one) to take on-the-record questions. Gillibrand's visit was covered here, here, and by CNN here. Gillibrand answered questions and spoke on topics ranging from cybersecurity to daycare to transparency, restating her support, for example, for posting congressional schedules and earmarks online.

Last fall Blogher organized a bi-partisan series of conference calls for bloggers, partnering with the Sunlight Foundation, to interview Members of Congress questions directly about health care reform. Bloggers were pointed toward Open Congress, where they could read the proposed health care legislation for reference and prepping for the calls. Among the participants were Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Sen. Gillibrand, and Rep. Cynthia Lummis.

Blogher's power is such that it has attracted corporate advertisers and sponsors that used to be the province of women's magazines and newspaper pages: McDonalds, Kellogs, and the like. The bloggers themselves, however, aren't afraid to challenge them--at one discussion I attended, a panelist urged the audience to challenge PUR water filters, who had an exhibit outside, on whether their filters were recyclable.

As traditional news organizations continue to go bottom up, Blogher is one model of how bloggers gathered together can become a force that politicians must pay notice--and how the bloggers themselves are becoming more sophisticated in using online tools to hold them accountable.

The Senate Agriculture Committee will take up a bill to regulate trading in derivatives in a markup today. The committee is a primary location for companies and individuals employed in the finance, insurance and real estate sector (FIRE) to send their campaign contributions. In 2009, members of the committee received a total exceeding $4.7 million, according to data obtained from the Center for Responsive Politics.

The leading recipient of contributions from the FIRE sector in 2009 is the junior Senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand. Gillibrand pulled in $1.2 million from the FIRE sector in 2009. Since New York is the home to the majority of finance and insurance companies, this comes as little surprise. Gillibrand is also raising money for her first Senate election campaign in 2010.

Appointed Senator Michael Bennet, of Colorado, received the second largest amount with a yield of $782,846 from the FIRE sector. Bennet faces a tough election race in both the primary and general elections. He also serves on the Banking Committee, which is the other Senate committee with oversight of financial regulation.

Committee chair Blanche Lincoln received the third most money from the FIRE sector with a haul of $691,500. Lincoln is facing one of the most difficult roads to reelection in the country this year and has been rapidly raising money. The bill being marked up in committee today was introduced by Lincoln, much to the dislike of the financial sector, last Friday.

South Dakota Senator John Thune pulled down $445,500 from the FIRE sector in 2009, making him the fourth biggest recipient on the committee. Thune pulled in this exceptional amount of money despite South Dakota Democrats not fielding a candidate to run against him.

Rounding out the top five is another candidate for reelection in 2010, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, who received $324,949 from the FIRE sector.

The Agriculture Committee occupies a special place in the world of finance as it maintains jurisdiction over the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which oversees and regulates futures and derivatives trading.

Senator	FIRE Contributions (2009)
Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY)	$1,216,500.00
Bennet, Michael (D-CO)	$782,846.00
Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)	$691,500.00
Thune, John (R-SD)	$445,500.00
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)	$324,949.00
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)	$168,175.00
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI)	$143,929.00
Nelson, Ben (D-NE)	$138,950.00
Leahy, Pat (D-VT)	$126,100.00
Baucus, Max (D-MT)	$117,469.00
Cornyn, John (R-TX)	$112,100.00
Brown, Sherrod (D-OH)	$99,600.00
Casey, Robert (D-PA)	$79,800.00
Klobuchar, Amy (D-MN)	$70,450.00
Conrad, Kent (D-ND)	$64,250.00
Harkin, Tom (D-IA)	$34,060.00
Lugar, Richard (R-IN)	$30,350.00
Roberts, Pat (R-KS)	$28,650.00
Johanns, Mike (R-NE)	$27,250.00
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA)	$23,250
Cochran, Thad (R-MS)	$2,500

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York said today that the final version of health care legislation will be available for at least 72 hours before debate. She also spoke out strongly in favor of transparency for congressional schedules, earmarks, and legislation in today's conference call with bloggers organized by Blogher, which I moderated on behalf of the Sunlight Foundation.

Sen. Gillibrand has been a longtime advocate for transparency, which Paul Blumenthal has blogged about here, here, and here.

The call was part of a series sponsored by Blogher to connect bloggers directly with legislators. Other lawmakers who have participated are Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Sen. Amy Klochubar, Rep. George Miller, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Jeff Merkely, and Rep. Cynthia Lummis. Many have spoken out about transparency.

Here are a few of the more interesting media mentions of Sunlight and our friends and grantees from this week:

Various media outlets and bloggers, including the likes of CNET.com, the Associated Press, the National Journal, Lawrence Lessig and Craig Newmark, have covered and congratulated the Center for Responsive Politics' (CRP) for making its data records from OpenSecrets.org free for anyone to download. The Journal's "Tech Daily Dose" column reported that more than 120 people had downloaded bulk data within the first 24 hours of CRP opening up its archives.

The Washington Post's "The Reliable Source" column highlighted Capitol Words, which "slices and dices the entirety of the Congressional Record for your searching pleasure," they write. McClatchy's David Lightman reported that, in light of the financial crisis, words you would expect to be used by congressional lawmakers often, such as recession, bailout, stimulus and deficit do not crack the top 30 most frequently uttered terms so far this year. And Daphne Ritter with the New York Post looks at the top words used by several lawmakers from the Empire State's congressional delegation.

Alice Lipowicz with Federal Computer Week used OpenCongress data in writing about how only 10 congressional lawmakers (four senators and six reps) post their daily schedules on their official Web sites. New York Newsday editorialized about how Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) is blazing a trail in her congressional career by posting her schedule and personal financial disclosure reports online. "While (congressional lawmakers are) at it, they should make sure that information is easy to locate, archived and searchable, so that watchful voters can track, over time, the lobbyists and interest groups bending an official's ear," the editors wrote.

Last week, Ryan Singel at Wired's "Epicenter" blog wrote about Sunlight Labs' contest Apps for America, and asked his readers to vote for their favorites. This week, he reported back on the response he received, and issued what he terms the "Epicenter Reader's Choice award."

Speaking of Sunlight Labs, both Craig Newmark on his blog and Andrew Pratt at Science Progress praised the Labs' pre-design for the yet-to-be-launched Data.gov, the site that new White House CIO Vivek Kundra has promised will be an easy-to-use central repository of federal bulk data. "This is precisely the kind of work I've argued that the nonprofit and advocacy sphere needs to be engaged in right now," Pratt wrote.

The San Francisco Examiner editorialized about how Congress should exercise its oversight authority and find out where every last federal bailout dollar has been spent. The Examiner gives props to Anu Narayanswamy's Real Time Investigations expose' of the identity of senior U.S. Treasury officials who are also members of the Troubled Assets Relief Program's Investment Committee -- a small group that makes big decisions about which banks receive how much of our money.

The Washington Independent's Elana Schor reports on an analysis they conducted of House and Senate fundraising during the current election cycle compared to the previous cycles. Despite the economic downturn, their analysis showed significant upticks in campaign giving. Schor quotes Bill Allison, Sunlight's senior fellow, "For the average citizen, the election is over and they're not even going to think about it for the next four years." But the donors "who are paying close attention," have a vested interest in what Congress does -- or does not -- pass into law this year.

Thanks, and see you next week!

Back when Kirsten Gillibrand was elected to the House of Representatives in 2006, she promised to post her daily schedule of meetings and events. This was an unprecendented action for a member of the House and Gillibrand kept up her promise for all of 2007-2008. Now that she has ascended to the Senate--chosen as a replacement for now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton--Gillibrand is continuing to post her schedule, this time in a much more detailed and impressive way.

Yesterday was the first day of Sen. Gillibrand's new schedule and it looks like this:

Sunlight Report for Wednesday, April 1, 2009

- Hosted Congressional HIV/AIDS Briefing

• Meeting with Ed Malloy, President of the NYS Building and Construction Trades Council and Ed Smith, President of Union Labor Life Insurance Company to discuss ARRA funds for job creation in New York State

• Gave speech to the United Jewish Communities organization on health care reform, the federal budget and foreign policy

• Floor votes (see Congressional Record)

• Meeting with Charles Myers to discuss frozen credit markets

• Meeting with Eli Feldman, President of Metropolitan Jewish Health

• Meeting with Mayor Brian Stratton to discuss appropriations requests for Schenectady

The noteworthy parts of her schedule are found in the meetings with interests and individuals who are clearly lobbying. In this case, as opposed to many of the other six lawmakers posting their schedules, she provides clear information on the employment of those she meets with and what they are discussing. The latter piece of information is crucial and is rarely seen in other schedules.

This meeting, for instance, provides us with a decent amount of information regarding who is lobbying her office and for what: "Meeting with Ed Malloy, President of the NYS Building and Construction Trades Council and Ed Smith, President of Union Labor Life Insurance Company to discuss ARRA funds for job creation in New York State." (Emphasis mine.) This kind of transparency allows her constituents to be able to track who is lobbying her office and what for.

While this isn't what ideal, legally binding disclosure would look like, it is impressive from a position of voluntary disclosure. Hopefully, this kind of information will be a regular feature of her schedule.

When Gillibrand ascended to the Senate, I wrote that, as a senator, she should aim to improve her schedule:

In [continuing her spirit of transparency], she should aim to improve the content of her official schedule. One thing we’ve noticed is that her schedule has grown sparse, only notes official events, and does not list meetings with anyone from outside of government. In moving to the Senate, Gillibrand should aim for a higher standard of transparency in her schedule.

It is great to see her schedule, not only return to listing all meetings, as it did when it began, but increasing the breadth of information disclosed to the public.

Today, New York Governor David Paterson appointed Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand to fill Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. Gillibrand has, from day one of her congressional career, worked to make her office one of the more transparent in the Congress.

Entering Congress in 2007, Gillibrand was at the vanguard of transparency innovation in Congress. She was the first congressional candidate to sign Sunlight's Punch Clock pledge, a promise to post her daily schedule once she had taken office, and to post her schedule (which has been archived at Congresspedia). She was also one of the first to post her earmarks, earmark requests, and personal financial disclosures to her official web site without a requirement to do so. Gillibrand was also a chief proponent of requiring Inspector General reports to be posted online. We truly hope that she carries this spirit of transparency with her to the Senate.

In doing so, she should aim to improve the content of her official schedule. One thing we've noticed is that her schedule has grown sparse, only notes official events, and does not list meetings with anyone from outside of government. In moving to the Senate, Gillibrand should aim for a higher standard of transparency in her schedule.

A shining example for congressional schedules can be found in the schedules of the Montana delegation, Sens. Max Baucus, Jon Tester, and Rep. Denny Rehberg. All three of these lawmakers post detailed schedules that note many meetings with lobbyists, home state residents, industry executives, union members, and others who come to Washington to talk and lobby their elected officials. That is what a truly transparent schedule looks like. Hopefully, as she moves up to the Senate, Rep. Gillibrand will continue to advance transparency and improve her efforts at maintaining a transparent office.