While Sunlight has generally not been a target of Evgeny Morozov's criticisms, I was amused a few days ago to discover that I'm quoted in his new book, To Save Everything Click Here (page 117). Morozov suggests that Sunlight is a "bastion of technosolutionism," quoting me from this 2010 Economist article: "There is a cultural change in what people expect from government, fuelled by the experience of shopping on the internet and having real-time access to financial information."

Technology is at the heart of Sunlight's approach to our mission, and we do see citizens' technology-fueled expectations for information access as an overwhelmingly positive force in pushing for a more transparent, accountable government. (Indeed, other versions of the quote Morozov cites can be found throughout our work. I suspect that Morozov has overlooked the valuable work of our peers as well, whose ideas and work often inspire our initiatives.)

But accusing Sunlight of being a "bastion of technosolutionism" misses the mark enormously. I was initially torn over whether to write about the skepticism, nuance, and substance that help fuel Sunlight's work, but then I came across another passage from Morozov that provides a perfect opportunity:

How do we ensure accountability? Let’s forget about databases for a moment and think about power. How do we make the government feel the heat of public attention? Perhaps by forcing it to make targeted disclosures of particularly sensitive data sets. Perhaps by strengthening the FOIA laws, or at least making sure that government agencies comply with existing provisions. Or perhaps by funding intermediaries that can build narratives around data—much of the released data is so complex that few amateurs have the processing power and expertise to read and make sense of it in their basements. This might be very useful for boosting accountability but useless for boosting innovation; likewise, you can think of many data releases that would be great for innovation and do nothing for accountability.

In this passage, Morozov outlines what he sees as a good faith approach to creating government accountability through open data. This passage reads like an intro paragraph to a Sunlight Foundation strategy document or activity report. Let's try it again with links:

How do we ensure accountability? Let’s forget about databases for a moment and think about power. How do we make the government feel the heat of public attention? Perhaps by forcing it to make targeted disclosures of particularly sensitive data sets. Perhaps by strengthening the FOIA laws, or at least making sure that government agencies comply with existing provisions. Or perhaps by funding intermediaries that can build narratives around data—much of the released data is so complex that few amateurs have the processing power and expertise to read and make sense of it in their basements. This might be very useful for boosting accountability but useless for boosting innovation; likewise, you can think of many data releases that would be great for innovation and do nothing for accountability.

I could have added links to each letter instead of each word. Sunlight's work is varied and complex, and definitely can't be adequately summarized as "solutionist" -- Sunlight lives at the intersection of journalism, advocacy, technology, and political power.

My screen shows 579 pages of blog posts on just the main Sunlight blog, covering our activities since our founding in 2006. If you read all of them, no doubt you could extract some sentiments that you could call "solutionist." You'd also find skepticism, optimism, public dialog, exuberance, curiosity, and all the various signs of people in an organization engaged publicly in the complicated work of government transparency.

We think about risks like "solutionism" (I referred recently to the "triumphalist" view of legislative versioning), just as we think about the risk of relying too strongly on an inside (or outside) advocacy strategy, or the risks of advocating for transparency in the wrong places. (You'd be unlikely to conclude that Sunlight endorses a "monitorial democracy," though, if you were familiar with the depth of our writing and thinking on the topic.)

Sunlight's conception of open data is not agnostic to political power, refuses to be reduced to splashy data portals, and serves specific needs to help create valuable journalism and public dialog and a more substantive politics.

As the director of our ongoing mini-documentary series OpenGov Champions I am pleased to see that Homicide Watch DC, one of our Champs, have met their Kickstarter fundraising goal to keep their project alive while founders Laura and Chris Amico are fulfilling academic interests in Boston. Laura has a Nieman-Berkman fellowship in journalism innovation at Harvard for the coming academic year. They reached their goal of $40,000 4 days before the deadline. As of writing this, they have exceeded it with donations from more than 1,000 individual backers.

It is such a great testimony to how much the different communities in Washington, D.C. value their efforts to open up court data on the city’s violent crime. For weeks, my Twitter feed has been filled with pleas from across town to contribute to their Kickstarter project so they can hire a reporter to keep Homicide Watch following the full cycle of every homicide in D.C. through the justice system. I saw Laura and Chris after they had just launched the Kickstarter bid, and Laura told me she felt torn about moving to Boston with the uncertain future of the project, while the community on the site was pleading her to keep going. There is a real need for the site that fills the information gap around homicide in D.C.

Sunlight supported Homicide Watch DC by donating footage I had shot for the OpenGov Champ video to be used in their Kickstarter video. We are very happy for Laura and Chris to have met their goal, and wish them much success in their future endeavors!

We’re constantly searching for innovators who are using technology to create more government transparency. Check out our latest OpenGov Champions video about Liz Barry, who along with others from Public Laboratory for Open Technology and Science, is using DIY tools to map environmental catastrophes like the BP Oil Spill and other affected urban and rural areas.

If you get inspired by Homicide Watch and Public Lab, please nominate an OpenGov Champ from your community.

The Senate is expected to vote soon on the DISCLOSE Act, a bill that will shine a light on the dark money that is overshadowing our elections. Over the next few days, we will be posting a series of blogs explaining “What You Should Know About the DISCLOSE Act.” Today’s post explains what the DISCLOSE Act would do, if enacted.

The DISCLOSE Act was first introduced in 2010 as a response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United Case, which, along with a handful of other court decisions, unleashed a torrent of dark money in our elections. So far in the 2012 election cycle, almost $140 million has been spent by Super PACs, and it’s likely that hundreds of millions more may have been spent by 501(c) nonprofit organizations. (We don’t know how much exactly, because there’s no disclosure.)

The 2012 DISCLOSE Act (which stands for Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections) is the most narrowly tailored congressional response to address the flood of corporate and union spending on elections. The bill is simple. It would require groups airing election ads to disclose where they got their money.

If enacted, the DISCLOSE Act would require corporations, unions, super PACs and other secretive nonprofits to report within 24 hours of making a campaign expenditure of $10,000 or more. The names of donors who give $10,000 or more to the organization would be made public, but donors could remain anonymous by specifying that their donations to the organization were not to be used for campaign purposes.

The DISCLOSE Act is important because campaign ads are misleading. The messenger is often as important as the message in getting at the truth behind the ad. The DISCLOSE Act would help voters get to know the messenger.

The bill faces an uphill battle in the Senate because of a promised Republican filibuster. But any senator who has ever supported transparency of money in politics—and there are many, including Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John McCain and even Mitch McConnell, who has embarked on a war of misinformation in an effort to kill the bill—should vote in favor of this bill as a way to ensure voters are informed and that the corrupting influence of money in our elections can be disinfected by exposure to sunlight.

Up Next: How Does the DISCLOSE Act Shine a Light on Super PACs and Dark Money?

Update:
What You Should Know About the DISCLOSE Act Part 2: How does the DISCLOSE Act Shine a Light on Super PACs and Dark Money?

What You Should Know About the DISCLOSE Act Part 3: Does the DISCLOSE Act Favor Unions?

What You Should Know About the DISCLOSE Act Part 4: Is the DISCLOSE Act Constitutional?

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.

Last year, we wrote about the fatal Upper Big Branch mine explosion that killed 29 people in West Virginia. You can read all about it here, here and here.

Although the story of the Massey Energy-owned mine is controversial for many reasons, we were most concerned with the issues that related to the mine violations data collected and processed by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), a government agency. (See what we mean in the video at the end of this post.)

Unfortunately, recent events reveal that there are greater transparency issues afoot: After West Virginian Sen. Jay Rockefeller called for Senate hearings on the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster, a subsequent investigation revealed that Massey Energy kept two separate records - a more accurate one for themselves and a cleaned up version for the federal regulators.

In a report by the Washington Post, Kevin Stricklin, a MSHA official said;

Managers were aware that chronic hazardous conditions were not recorded. What they’re required to do is list all the hazards in the official book. This is the book that not only MSHA looks at ... but it should be the book that miners and other people who are going into the mine should look at so they would be aware of any conditions in the mine before they go in.

Massey sold the Upper Big Branch mine to Alpha Natural Resources in June 2011. Luckily, the new owners are much more supportive of the ongoing investigations.

Though it’s still early in the process, the results of this investigation reaffirm our call to make public information more available and more searchable, so that we can hold our government more accountable. Indeed, the previous findings by the MSHA indicated that the government officials were quick to blame the blast on natural factors that were triggered by methane gas and coal dust. Now, the federal regulators realize that the mine owners sent in fake information that did not represent what was actually going on at the mine.

The Upper Big Branch Mine disaster is a clear example of how transparency is a two-way street: This incident could perhaps have been avoided if both the regulators and the mine owners did their part in providing the kind of information that would have saved the miners lives.

In our still on going campaign to tell our governors to support open government, we stand beside citizen activists who want to see an end to the roll back of transparency laws. We are dedicated to equipping the public with tools with-which to demand for accountability, and have developed various resources including open government.org,  an open-source public resource website for government transparency and civic engagement at the state and local levels. So far, we have covered California, Louisiana, Maryland, Texas, and Wisconsin with Minnesota to be launched soon.  Montana's recent strike at open government reaffirms the need to continuously-- as Pete Weitzel, former director of the Coalition of journalists for Open Government puts it-- "turn a public official's 'right to no' into your 'right to know'."

• Last week, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer vetoed a bill that would have created a website with the state’s budget and spending details. Proposed by Rep.Tom Burnett, HB 444 would have enabled the public to search, retrieve and download information about the state finances including state budgets, revenues, appropriations and expenditures. But Gov. Schweitzer thwarted the bill with claims that at an estimated $400,000, the website would be too costly and did not have an “ investment on return for the tax payer”. Michael Noyes writes more on Montana Watchdog.

• The city of New York unveiled a “Road Map for the Digital City” -- a project that will feature APIs for city data and plans that will change the way government information is presented online. Open government entrepreneurs are optimistic that the Road Map will give the city’s startups an advantage through integrating media and technology while widening access to wifi in public parks. Anil Dash, who is confident the web is a public space, adds that this would be a valuable opportunity for citizens to be engaged through technology. Read more on Anil Dash.

• Last week, we highlighted a post that mentioned Oregon's move to strengthen their public records. Now, A.J. O’Connell is writing that the opposition from some government agencies including the League of Oregon Cities, that  has hired lobbyists to try and prevent the bill from becoming law, may cause a problem. His attempt at reaching out to the state’s Attorney General to show that Creswell, his city, is not aligned with the lobbyists intentions, have been swept under the rug. What is he hoping to do next to save open government in Portland? Find out on A.J. for Creswell.

• A bill that would limit the reach of public records in Raleigh, NC was proposed on the grounds that productivity of government workers searching for, organizing and providing information requested by the public, will be reduced. Daniel O’Leary is proposing an easier way: turning the documents into electronic format! Through LinDoc which creates electronic e-forms, that connect directly to a universal repository, the public and reporters are able to search and find public records for themselves, eliminating the need for government staffers to do this task. In cases where some records have to be paid for, O’Leary recommends using WebLink which is already being used by other states. Read more of his compelling argument on Capture Expert blog.

This week marks the fifth anniversary of the Sunlight Foundation. It is exciting to reflect on how far we've come, the great people who helped us along the way and where we plan to go. With your help, we've grown from a small organization with big ideas to a connected community whose call for greater government openness and transparency is heard throughout the country.

We began with the nonpartisan goal of using the revolutionary power of the Internet and new technology to open government information. When we started, this modern interpretation of transparency was almost a completely foreign idea in Washington - a place where corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff dominated the headlines and sifting through reams of paper in order to get at the truth of what was going on was the status quo. While ordinary citizens were embracing new media tools and websites that gave them a readily available stream of information at their fingertips, government showed little interest in keeping up with the times.

Right out of the gate, we took on these age-old issues with a fresh arsenal of online tools and empowered citizens to engage in new forms of direct oversight. We believed then, as we still do, that none of us are as smart as all of us and that we have a stronger democracy when open information gives people the ammunition they need so they can speak truth to power. Sunlight developed all kinds of new tools and websites to achieve these goals and get the public involved in the political process.

We encouraged lawmakers to post their schedules online and launched the Open House Project to engage policy experts, citizens and lawmakers in a conversation on all the ways the House of Representatives could update how it shares information with the public. We initiated and funded dozens of projects to create online databases of government information. Everything from earmarks to congressional fundraiser invitations to foreign lobbying disclosures to House expenditures. We created mobile applications to put Congress into the hands of the people and fostered a community of thousands of 'civic hackers' to build better tools. We updated legislative rules and collaboratively wrote new policy to open government to the Internet age. We've trained thousands of journalists and citizens in using data and in using the web to watchdog Washington. We modeled government websites to show what is possible and followed the money, lobbying and the influence industry with ongoing reporting projects.

Through it all we are most inspired and proud of the people who take action and participate in the process to improve our democracy. Thank you to the countless people and organizations who have worked with us, used our tools, dug deep into our websites through our first five years. The Sunlight Foundation will continue to work with you explore how to enhance our democracy and citizen engagement with our public officials using online tools. Sure, there's a lot more to be done. As a wise person once said, if this was easy, it would have been done already. And we promise you - the best is yet to come!

Please continue to support our work to keep the light shining on government.