This Friday marks the one-year anniversary of the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision. We here at Sunlight recognize that if Congress and the Supreme Court are going to make it difficult to follow the money, then we’re going to have to follow the action. Now is the time for modern day lobbying disclosure. We need to fix the current regulations and mandate the tracking of lobbying activities in real-time, online.

We’ve seen creative new techniques in the way election money is spent — and hidden — by outside groups. We’ve seen the legislative effort to respond to the decision fail in the Senate. And we’ve seen lobbying continue on as it always has been, albeit with less hindrances.

As a result of the Citizens United decision, lobbyists now have a powerful new means of persuasion — the ability to spend corporate money against a member of Congress without any accountability. We need real-time online reporting of lobbying contacts by anyone who lobbies to counter this new radical power lobbyists have to influence public policy through the very real threat of unlimited campaign ads.

Now, a lobbyist can approach a member of Congress and — by implication or outright threat — let the member know this said lobbyist can direct millions of dollars into a barrage of ads either supporting or opposing the reelection that member. Making matters worse, because disclosure rules are so weak, it is possible for lobbyists to do this with no visible paper trail disclosing his or his client’s involvement in placing those ads. When the public learns about these new “powers,” their opinion of lobbyists is likely to plummet even further. Lobbyists already ranked last in Gallup’s 2010 annual poll on professions’ honesty and ethics — below car salespeople.

To follow and neutralize this new influence, Sunlight is stepping up its push for real lobbying disclosure — the real-time, online disclosure that works at the same pace as money in politics. Our proposal is explained here, and we urge you to go to PublicMarkup.org to comment on a draft lobbying disclosure bill we just posted. Our hope is that by airing the bill publicly and crowdsourcing its review, we can hone an even better proposal, and build support inside and outside Congress for real-time, online lobbying disclosure.

In addition to our lobbying reform bill, Sunlight is pursuing a variety of new efforts to shine a light on lobbyists’ work.

For example, our Reporting Group’s new Lobbyist Registration Tracker allows you to see, in near real time, who is newly registering as a lobbyist, watching the revolving door swing from staffer to lobbyist. As you’ve seen on our blog, we provide running coverage of registered lobbyists and the “invisible lobby” alike, so that everyone knows when and where influence is affecting policy-making, even if it evades the simplistic definitions of the current laws.

Our award-winning Sunlight Live platform will continue to showcase money in politics and lobbying activities disclosures along with live events, adding essential context to public events. Our Influence Explorer site is getting more and more vital data, creating an expanding picture of how and where money is flowing, and from whom. And our new OpenGovernment.org site (which we just launched in collaboration with the Participatory Politics Foundation) is bringing the same kinds of data to state legislatures, which are also strongly affected by the Citizens United decision. And soon, you will be able to research state-based lobby expenditure data thanks to the hard work of the National Institute on Money and Politics.

This is just a taste of what Sunlight’s focus on lobbying disclosure reform will entail. Stay tuned — or better yet, sign up for our updates — so we can invite you to help us test new apps and help us shape our work.

This week, Speaker Pelosi asked House administrators to post House members’ expenses on the Web, for the first time. We are quite excited about  Speaker Pelosi’s action , as it demonstrates a strong commitment toward increasing transparency and accountability. (Hard as this might be to imagine but currently, the House collects and publishes members’ expenses in a bound paper book on a quarterly basis.)

So now we hear that the first batch of expenditure reports will be posted before Aug. 31 in the PDF format. PDFs are notoriously challenging because they are difficult for computers to index and people to search .Now we are not so happy.

Congress needs to be urged to provide these reports in a format that is structured, searchable, downloadable and mashable. This will enable the reuse of information to improve public scrutiny. Assurances should be given to the public that these records will be permanently archived and the House should be encouraged to make these reports happen in as close to real-time disclosure as feasible.

All this will improve the public’s ability to better analyze the data, and that is key to making this new disclosure mandate fulfill Pelosi’s promise to increase transparency and ensure greater accountability to the public. And, there’s no reason the Senate should be allowed to continue to keep their expenditures in the dark. The Senate leadership should be encouraged to follow the House’s lead and also publish senators’ expenditures online. The Sunlight Foundation has repeatedly called for Congress to post these expenditure reports online—initially in March 2008 as part of our model Transparency in Government Act, which we posted on PublicMarkup.org. Since then, we have further encouraged online disclosure through blog posts and communications with Pelosi’s staff. Speaker Pelosi’s new mandate also follows a recent scandal in the UK that has resulted in several lawmakers, including the Speaker of the British Parliament, to step down because of rampant misuse of public funds spent by Members of Parliament on personal items including repair of a castle moat. News of this scandal has hit the front pages of newspapers around the world. Undoubtedly, British Members of Parliament would have spent their allowances differently had they expected their purchases to be under public scrutiny. Today, our newly networked citizenry has rising expectations of greatly expanded access to governmental information, so that it may play a fuller role in understanding, evaluating and participating in the workings of its government. At the same time, online transparency enhances the press' ability to mind the work of government and be the eyes, ears and voice of the people. Congress should be encouraged to maximize this new opportunity to show its dedication to truly creating the kind of transparency that technology now makes possible and that the public has come to expect.

Within the past week, the New York State Senate has taken some impressive steps toward conducting its business open and online. Earlier today, the Senate launched its new Web site that offers citizens a much clearer window into how the chamber functions and invites their participation. The site now includes a weekly calendar, "What's happening now?" and "Find my senator" functions, info on senators, a listing of committees, data on issues and legislation, photos and videos and a blog. One aspect I find especially cool is the Markup function that allows the public to comment on legislation that is under consideration. This function is a New York version of Sunlight's Public Markup. (Sunlight’s senior technology advisors, Andrew Rasiej and Micah Sifry, are advising the Senate on their transparency redesign.) And here's a link to an article from The New York Observer about the launch.

Here's a short video of Malcolm A. Smith, Senate majority leader, introducing the site:

The new Web site launch comes on the heels of strong voices in the Senate calling on Gov. David Paterson to be transparent in how the state spends the federal stimulus funds. Last week, Republican lawmakers, citing a "total lack of oversight and accountability" with regard to the stimulus, called on the governor to adopt a comprehensive plan designed to ensure greater transparency in the spending of stimulus dollars. And earlier this week, 16 Democratic state senators sent the governor a letter calling on him to create an independent auditor to monitor the distribution of stimulus funds. And this all comes after a coalition, calling itself the NYS Stimulus Oversight Working Group, in April, called for the creation of an independent stimulus monitor (pdf). Back in late February, John Wonderlich, Sunlight’s policy director, testified before the State Senate’s Temporary Committee on Rules Reform about the need for states to be open and transparent in their spending of stimulus funds. In his testimony, John promoted standards for transparency that can and should be applied generally to any legislature, and should be examined in the context of state-level disclosure reform.  And he proposed eight questions we at Sunlight believe the New York State Senate should be asking: 1. Is public information online?  Any data deemed public should also be available online.  Government serves the public poorly when it fulfills disclosure requirements by keeping binders in the basement of a public building. Government should post online in a timely manner procedural information, such as bills, committee schedules, transcripts, reports, or calendars to allow lawmakers and citizens to participate in the legislative process.  Rules should require such information to be posted online by those responsible for its creation: lawmakers, the leadership, or committees.

1. Are databases accessible in bulk?  Public databases should allow for advanced access through both bulk data download and programmatic interfaces (Application Programming Interfaces, or APIs).  Limited level of access forces programmers and analysts to examine public data through a needlessly limited viewpoint, effectively spurning complex or creative scrutiny.

2. Is public data accurate and descriptive?  Legislative information must be accurate to maintain its public utility. Votes data, journals, and transcripts should accurately reflect reality, and chambers' rules should enforce this requirement.

3. Is technological infrastructure insulated from political abuse?  Professional qualified staff should create and maintain legislatures’ technological infrastructure with reliable funding and insulation from political concerns.  Committees for technological coordination, inspectors general, and public advisory boards can all provide effective steps toward promoting competent technology infrastructure.

4. Is ethics disclosure sufficient? Public trust is undermined when legislatures fail to enforce the disclosure of ethics information.  Financial disclosures, campaign finance disclosure, taxpayer funded expenditures, and ethics investigations should all be publicly available, in real time, and online.

5. Are individual lawmakers, committees, and leadership offices able to take advantage of online tools?  Just as non-profits, businesses, and other governments can set a useful example, individual staffers and lawmakers will often set good example if they can confidently engage online.  Legislatures should provide the technological support and legal guidance necessary for online engagement to flourish.

6. Is the public well served by the legislature's disclosure? Legislatures often fail to meet even basic needs of constituents, answering questions like "Who is my representative?" or "Where can I find this bill?" Citizens should have a clear mechanism or contact point for transparency feedback, to help identify shortfalls, and develop better disclosure procedures.

7. Are lawmakers and their staffs able to do their jobs? A useful proxy for public access can be lawmakers’ offices themselves.  If lawmakers and their staff are missing an essential piece of information, or relying on expensive subscription services to do their jobs, then citizens are certainly being shut out. Lawmakers should have a similar forum for addressing technological issues, without fear of political reprisal.

As Ingrid Drake writes at POGO’s blog, a strong legislative branch is necessary to provide oversight of the executive branch, as is diligent citizen watchdogging, I would add.  Ingrid reports that the folks at POGO are hearing reports from the Empire State that “information about available stimulus funds is currently being shared mostly with entities that already have long-standing ties to state government through existing grants and contracts, or other existing relationships.”

Congratulations to Andrew, Micah and the Empire State Senate for their new and more transparent Web site. And kudos to the folks in New York working on bringing oversight and accountability to how the state spends the stimulus. The rest of the states should do the same.

Nick Troiano at SocialGovernment.com has an interesting and important post about government transparency, the 2.0 version. Nick was reflecting from a discussion featured by the National Conference on Citizenship titled “In Transparency, We Trust?

He says “transparency 1.0” was government opening up its data for citizens to see. That age dawned in 1966 when Congress passed and President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Freedom of Information Act.  Another transparency 1.0 manifestation was when government entities started setting up Web sites. But the communication was all one way, flowing from government to the citizens. But as Nick points out, our expectations of transparency in government have changed and now include participation.” This is the essence of “transparency 2.0,” where “a window between the people and their government” no longer will suffice. We need to have the ability to reach through the window and “fiddle around.” Observation is fine, but participation is now key. Nick notes that progress has been made toward the participatory aspects of transparency 2.0. He lists congressional lawmakers communicating with their constituents via Twitter and YouTube, President Obama’s online town hall meeting and Sunlight’s PublicMarkup.org, were citizens collaborated together write and comment on sample legislation. Lisa Rosenberg, Sunlight’s government affairs consultant, participated in the NCoC discussion, and said that the goal of transparency should be to open up discussions, improve the deliberative process, and help our democracy live up to its potential.  If government conducted its business online and in real time a more thoughtful, deliberative conversation between elected officials and the public could be created. This, in turn, would result in better public policy, more careful monitoring of the public purse, and more trust in government. Nick predicts transparency 2.0 will be the backbone of a more social, and thus, responsive government. Empowered citizens working with public officials to make informed decisions are benefits that transparency 2.0 promises to deliver.

Soon-to-be ranking member on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Rep. Darrell Issa issued a letter demanding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac turn over nine years of lobbying records to the committee. First of all, one would hope that this disclosure would be placed in the public record for all to see. Secondly, Issa's demand brings up an important issue: Lobbyist disclosure in its current form is inadequate for determining and dissuading undue influence seeking.

Among other things, current lobbyist disclosure does not require the disclosure of contacts made between lobbyists and congressional offices. This appears to be the type of information that Issa seeks. Why must we wait until things fall apart to go back and require disclosure (especially in the context of a partisan tit-for-tat about who caused the financial crisis)? Full and complete disclosure should be required early to prevent this kind of behavior, not used after the fact.

Similarly, disclosure should not be targeted, but should cover all lobbyists. I want to know the activities of financial services lobbyists just as much as Fannie and Freddie lobbyists. I'd especially like to know this considering that AIG and Citigroup are still funding K Street influence peddlers, while Fannie and Freddie have shuttered their lobby shops.

Here's a reasonable proposal that could prevent the abuses in the lobbying world that led us into this current mess.

The idea of far greater transparency in government affairs is spreading fast. How can you tell? Today's Washington Times carries an op-ed by one of Washington's top lawyers, Lanny Davis, that includes both a full-throated defense of the lobbying profession and an endorsement for "total transparency."

Here's a simple proposal:

Every lobbyist visiting a member of Congress or the executive branch to influence official action (the definition of lobbying) should first be required to sign in on an online, real-time computer (and thus, immediately accessible to all).

Information to be disclosed before the meeting should include the lobbyist's name, the client represented, the amount paid by month or year for lobbying, the specific purpose of the meeting, the position to be taken by the lobbyist, the legislation to be discussed, the action to be requested (the "ask" or "asks," to be updated after meeting), and the amount of current and prior campaign donations made by the client, the lobbyist and relatives associated with both.

Every time, every meeting. It's as simple as that.

One of the biggest failures in lobbying transparency is the absence of any disclosure of actual meetings. The current state of transparency for lobbyists is poor. Lobbyists only have to file quarterly reports that do not detail with whom they are meeting, what they are meeting about, and what their client is seeking. Lobbyists are also only required to file semiannual reports detailing their contributions to lawmakers. All of this amounts to a less-than-satisfactory system of disclosure providing the public with an incredibly limited view into the workings of their government.

It's heartening to see that some who travel in the highest circles of Washington lawyers and lobbyists, like Lanny Davis, are backing a more robust version of transparency. For another take on real lobbyist disclosure see Sunlight's Transparency in Government Act.

The 2008 presidential campaign featured blistering attacks, particularly from the eventual victor Sen. Barack Obama, on Washington's chief money-making industry. Lobbyists are now trying to assess where they stand in Washington with a reformer in the White House and an economic downturn that is now actually stretching onto K Street.

Most of the change that will occur on K Street relates to the partisan makeup of firms. With Republicans falling further into the minority, lobby firms will need fewer GOP lobbyists and more Democratic ones. Some changes are already underway with Comcast replacing a Republican as chief lobbyist with a former staffer of prominent Obama supporter Tom Daschle.

Despite the Politico's suggestion that, "The repositioning highlights how little Washington is likely to change, despite all the anti-lobbyist rhetoric tossed around in the campaign," lobby firms certainly fear what kind of access and what new reforms they could face under President Obama's administration. If we had the sense of smell of a lion, we could smell the fear emanating from the monitor when reading this Congressional Quarterly article from today. This article is ridden with quotes from lobbyists not only attempting to sell themselves and their business to a new administration, but also trying to prebut the coming reforms and changes.

I sincerely hope that the promises of reform do not end at the ballot box as so many on K Street seem to be projecting. Further transparency requirements are needed to reel in the influence industry. A good place to start would be to enact the reforms contained in the Transparency in Government Act, available at PublicMarkup.org.

An Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch, a mental health parity bill, a package of tax break extensions, and tax breaks and relief for victims of natural disasters, specifically Hurricane Ike. These don't sound like they have any relation to the relief of an financial crisis, but, as of today, they will all play a major role. The new massive bailout package — sorry, "rescue" package — introduced in the Senate includes all of these measures. The inclusion of these measures could help push the underlying Emergency Economic Stabilization Act through Congress or torpedo it by injecting inter-chamber politics into an already tense political situation.

At the heart of the tacked-on legislation is a combination of an AMT patch and tax break extensions for corporations and renewable energy investments. Senate Democrats, most prominently Sen. Max Baucus, believe that the inclusion of these measures will help draw the support of House Republicans who previously voted down Monday's bailout bill. However, this measure is already drawing the ire of House Democrats, including Blue Dogs and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

The AMT/tax break extension package was previously passed by the Senate, but House leaders, pushed by Hoyer and the Blue Dogs, intended on shelving the proposal due to its failure to abide by pay-as-you-go rules (providing offsetting cuts to go with revenue reductions). The inclusion of the package in the bailout bill will revive the animus between the two Democratic factions. Hoyer has already stated that the inclusion of the "tax extenders" is "controversial" and was included only because "they thought that’s the only way they could get it passed.” Of course, the Blue Dogs, being prominent supporters of the bailout bill, may find themselves in a situation where this compromise is the best they can get.

Seeing as how every vote counts at this point — the bailout only needs 12 votes to pass in the House — the inclusion of the mental health parity legislation previously passed by the House could help sway one or two votes. The chief Republican cosponsor of the bill, Rep. Jim Ramstad, voted against the bailout bill on Monday. Also, one the bill's seven cosponsors, Rep. Pete Stark, also voted against the bailout. The inclusion of the defining bill of Ramstad's career, as he retires this year, could be enough to sway this one vote into the "yes" column.

In classic congressional fashion, the Senate has decided to use a crisis piece of legislation as a way to push through a massive package of other priorities forcing an inter-chamber factional battle to come to a head. The inclusion of this controversial legislation could also serve as a remedy to the current failure in the House.

Poison pill or appeasing antidote? We'll wait and see.

As news spreads that a consensus Wall Street bailout plan is being finalized, and leaders negotiate between proposals submitted from the Treasury Department, Senator Dodd, Representative Barney Frank, and others, two separate conversations are taking place. One is public, as the nation struggles to evaluate the urgency of the economic situation, and to understand the best course of action.  The other, however, is not public, as the compromises and deal making -- the real stuff of urgent policy-making -- are held in the dark.

The Sunlight Foundation is calling on Congress to publish the proposed bailout legislation as soon as possible, to give constituents and lawmakers themselves as much time as possible to examine the specifics of the proposal before it's voted on.  We will post the draft legislation to PublicMarkup.org as soon as possible, to give citizens a chance to weigh in on the proposal's specifics.

Congress faces urgent pressure from the Administration and from constituents to act. Regardless of the course of action Congress ultimately chooses, this is a decision that must be made in full public view. If citizens don't have a chance to evaluate the legislation, how can Congress possibly represent their constituents' needs?

The need for sunlight is especially required for urgent or emergency legislation. All too often, Congress praises transparency as a democratic value, but violates it in practice. Any lack of transparency in consideration of this legislation would be especially ironic since lawmakers have blamed the current crisis on financial malfeasance that was hidden from public view.

We have called the relevant congressional committees and have asked for copies of the new consensus legislation.  As soon we get it, we'll be posting the text of the legislation online at PublicMarkup.org.

Now more than ever,  Congress must represent the needs of all Americans, and to give everyone - citizens and lawmakers alike -- a chance to participate actively in the legislative process.

Before the bailout proposal is considered by lawmakers, it must undergo an even more important test: evaluation and assessment by the public.

The consideration of the $700 billion bailout bill — now lovingly known as the Authorization for Use of Financial Force — has turned into a thriller as the clock winds down on the session of Congress (set to end on Friday) and the stability of markets and financial institutions. Lobbyists for large business trade groups are racing down tips and attempting to defuse unpalatable proposals, limits on executive compensation and bankruptcy relief for homeowners, like Jack Bauer would a nuclear device. According to The Hill, the Chamber of Commerce's lobbyist Bruce Josten says, "If we don’t move quickly, we could be in the soup."

One lobbyist is using a flow chart to track proposals, others are reading reports at 4 am. Red Bull sales are probably through the roof. One thing that's for sure, these lobbyists, the one's who have worked hard to prevent any kind of oversight of the financial system and the mortgage market leading up to this crisis, are now working to prevent anything punitive or helpful to those who've lost their homes in this mess.

Francis Creighton, vice president and chief lobbyist with the Mortgage Bankers Association: "Bankruptcy is such a divisive issue in this debate, and resurrecting bankruptcy right now is completely unproductive ... This bill we are talking about is not a mortgage bill, not a housing bill. It’s supposed to address the threats to the entire economy.”

Steve Verdier, a lobbyist for the Independent Community Bankers Association (ICBA), on bankruptcy relief: "We are vigorously opposing that ... If that happens, then the mortgage rates for other consumers are going to go up.”

American Banking Association in a letter to Congress: “Authorizing write-downs of mortgages by bankruptcy judges will increase the risks of mortgage lending at a time when the market is already struggling”

During the 2008 cycle the three trade groups represented by these individual lobbyists have spent $3.1 million on PAC contributions to congressional lawmakers. Over the same time period they've spent $8.9 million dollars on lobbying Congress. (Data from OpenSecrets.org) That amount of money gives them the access they need to get their message to Congress.

During this lobbying feeding frenzy, Congress should be asking themselves one simple question, "Should I be listening to the very people who helped cause this mess? Shouldn't I try to listen to someone else?"

If lawmakers wanted to they could go to PublicMarkup.org and see what people are saying about each section of both the Dodd proposal and the Paulson proposal. It could be a useful way to have a discussion directly with people concerned about the bill, rather than the money merchants of K Street. Already, 81 comments have been left on the Dodd bill and 41 on the Paulson proposal.