Yesterday, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted, in essence, to sanction the practice of secret “pay-to-play” in the awarding of government contracts. With only Senator Tester recording his opposition, the committee voted out a bill that would ban federal agencies from collecting or disclosing any information about the political expenditures of federal contractors.

Turning logic on its head, the Keeping Politics Out of Federal Contracting Act of 2011 embodies the theory that maintaining the secrecy of dark money political contributions made by those seeking huge federal contracts somehow protects the integrity of the contracting process. I guess the lessons of Justice Brandeis that sunlight is the best disinfectant were lost on supporters of the bill.

Too add to the absurdity of the vote, the bill is a response to a phantom. The bill blocks disclosure that would result from an Executive Order mandating transparency by federal contractors. An Executive Order that was never issued. Ever fearful of disclosure, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Independent Business and their ilk flexed their muscles to preempt any transparency of dark money that has resulted from the Citizens United case.

This bill would be funny if it weren’t so scary, but sanctioning secrecy in our democracy is no laughing matter. If this bill makes its way to the Senate floor, we hope Senators see that rather than keeping politics out of the federal contracting process, this bill will keep corruption in it.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the guest blogger and those providing comments are theirs alone and do not reflect the opinions of the Sunlight Foundation or any employee thereof. Sunlight Foundation is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information within the guest blog.

Florida has been known to have some of the most impressive open government practices. But a few recent changes threatened to shake the people’s foundation of their right to know. Our guest blogger Barbara Petersen is here today to share the Sunshine State’s new initiatives on opening up their government. Barbara is the President of the First Amendment Foundation  a private not-for profit in Tallahassee Florida which acts as an advocate for the public’s right to oversee it’s government.

Two weeks ago, Florida’s Governor Rick Scott held a press conference, announcing the launch of an ambitious project that will allow online access to much of his email correspondence and that of 11 members of his leadership team.  Project Sunburst.

According to a press release from the Governor’s Press Office, the emails will be available with search capabilities.  Project Sunburst requires that all emails sent or received by the Governor and the designated staffers be posted to the Sunburst website within seven days.  The goal, however, is posting within 24 hours of receipt or transmission, and the Governor has plans to expand the program to include other agencies within the executive branch. The launch of Project Sunburst is one of a number of Governor Scott’s transparency initiatives – a second website, FloridahasARightToKnow  launched last year, provides access to state employee salary information and state pensions of $100,000 per year or more.  The state employee information is extremely useful, providing the name of the employee, the name of the employing agency, and the employee’s annual salary and number of years employed.  The pension information is relatively worthless in comparison – the database lists each state agency and the number of employees with pensions of more than $100,000 but provides little information that would help identify the employee.

 

Many of the Scott’s detractors claim that his transparency initiatives have more to do with the Governor’s political agenda – reducing the state work force and driving down the cost of government pensions – than a desire to be held accountable.  Regardless, the transparency website, like Project Sunburst, allows for easy and free access to information that is regularly requested through routine public record requests and sets a very positive example for other state agencies and local governments – if the governor can provide online access to regularly requested records, then why can’t a school board or county commission? In the first months of the Scott administration, his Office of Open Government reported a steep increase in the number of public record requests, particularly requests from the media for the email correspondence of the governor’s top staff.  In an attempt to alleviate the workload and improve access, the First Amendment Foundation, worked with the Capitol press corps and OOG staff to devise a plan under which FAF would make weekly requests for the email correspondence of five members of the Governor’s staff; once obtained by FAF, the email records would be dumped in a DropBox, and everyone given the key. Had it only been so simple.

 

FAF dutifully made the first request on March 7, 2011, requesting all email correspondence sent or received by the Governor, his chief of staff, and the five staffers. At about the same time FAF started making its public records requests, the governor’s office announced a “cost recovery” policy for public records. Under the new policy, OOG staff would respond to each public record request with an invoice estimating the cost of providing the records; once the invoice was paid (by cash or check, credit cards not accepted), the requested records would be produced.  There would be no charge for records requests costing less than $5.  What seemed like a reasonable policy at first blush turned into the public access nightmare from hell, and because of the time it took to track requests – nearly all were provided in pieces, a few one week, the remainder months later – and the costs associated with obtaining access, FAF was forced to abandon its project after only two months.

 

We received most of the records requested that first week within a fairly reasonable period of time and at no cost.  There was one glaring example, however: it took two months and cost $788.84 to obtain about 1,100 emails from the Governor’s communications director.  According to the invoice, the staffer took an hour to review 100 emails at an hourly rate of $70.87/hour – the communications director made $147,400 per year, and FAF was charged for the 11 hours it took him to retrieve and review his emails, many of which were on his personal email account.  (In another instance, we were charged the hourly rate for a top staffer who made just over $200,000 a year or $96.64 an hour.) FAF made eight requests in all, paid about $4,000 to obtain the requested emails, and received the last batch of the records in December – ten months after the final request was made.  Ultimately, the Governor agreed to refund the costs charged for those records it took longer than 60 days to obtain and, most importantly, made important revisions to his original cost recovery policy. Project Sunburst alleviates many of the problems FAF encountered and is, in all respects, a huge step forward for the Sunshine State.  The devil, of course, is in the details.  According to the May 3 press release, emails containing exempt information will not be posted, but will be provided pursuant to a public record request (with the exempt information redacted).  It seems, then, that we will need to continue to make regular public record requests for those emails and, of course, for the email correspondence of those staffers not included in Project Sunburst. Regardless, Governor Rick Scott deserves to be commended and hopefully, others in government, both in Florida and around the country, will follow his example.

(Below are the First Amendment public records request timeline)

A timeline of Public Records Requests by the First Amendment Foundation to the Governor of Florida's Office

A new breed of transparency advocate is making itself heard this week, taking to the streets and to corporate boardrooms to demand transparency from corporations that use shareholder money to engage in political activities. These corporate transparency advocates also inundated the Securities and Exchange Commission with more than 178,000 letters in support of a rule mandating disclosure.

Protests, including one yesterday outside a 3M shareholder meeting in St. Paul and one today at Bank of America in Charlotte are scheduled to coincide with votes on resolutions to ban the corporations from making political contributions. Directors of both companies oppose the proposals, which follow on the heels of votes by shareholders of other companies to attempt to have corporations disclose their political spending.

The push for corporations to reign in or disclose their political spending stems from anger over the Supreme Court’s Citizens United case, which for the first time in a century allowed corporations (and labor unions) to funnel unlimited amounts of money from their corporate coffers to political campaigns. Although corporations are still barred from directly giving corporate funds to candidates—they have their PACs for that—the spending they are engaging in now is far more nefarious and harder to track. Money from corporations’ exceedingly deep pockets is being funneled through Super PACs and nonprofit “social welfare” organizations to pay for campaign ads and other political activities with minimal or no disclosure.

The growing discontent among shareholders may be a result of learning that corporations are spending their money on positions the shareholders disagree with. (A threatened boycott of corporate sponsors of the American Legislative Exchange Council—famous for its support of the Stand Your Ground gun laws implicated in the shooting of an unarmed Trayvon Martin—resulted in Coca-Cola, Kraft and Pepsi cutting ties to the group.) Shareholders may simply be protecting their own financial well being, as recent studies have shown companies that make political donations underperform those that stay out of the political realm.

Whatever the reason, it will be a victory for transparency if any of the disclosure resolutions pass, but it won’t be the end of the story. There must be mandatory, blanket disclosure by all corporations of their political activities to ensure a level playing field. More importantly, disclosure will ensure that shareholders feel confident that corporations are acting in their best interests and will provide the public with a better sense of who is supporting their elected officials.

That’s why it is so important for the SEC to heed the call of the 178,000 letter writers and take a stand for transparency. (The Corporate Reform Coalition, of which Sunlight is a member, spurred the letter writing campaign.) At least one SEC commissioner gets it. Luis Aguilar publicly supported mandatory disclosure stating, "Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive system of disclosure related to corporate political expenditures--and that failure results in investors being deprived of uniform, reliable, and consistent disclosure regarding the political expenditures of the companies they own. It is the commission's responsibility to rectify this gap and ensure that investors are not left in the dark while their money is used without their knowledge or consent."

The election season is not yet in full swing and yet well over $100,000,00 in dark money has been spent by Super PACs, corporations, nonprofits and labor groups. Shareholders may be the key to finally finding out where that money is coming from.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the guest blogger and those providing comments are theirs alone and do not reflect the opinions of the Sunlight Foundation or any employee thereof. Sunlight Foundation is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information within the guest blog.

Introducing our guest blogger, Ryan Ozawa. Ryan wears many hats, in addition to being a lecturer at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, he is also a technology Cohost at Hawaii Public Radio and a Communications and Project Manager at Hawaii Information Service. You can read more of his thoughts at Hawaii Blog or follow him @hawaii.

If a good compromise is one in which neither side is satisfied, a new bill passed by the Hawaii state legislature is an unmitigated success.

The state Office of Information Practices, dedicated to "ensuring open government" but headed by a political appointee, supported amendments to Hawaii law that would give government agencies a process by which they could fight requests for information in the courts.

Open-government and media organizations fought the measure, saying it created a costly and cumbersome process that goes in the wrong direction. Yet, even some of the government bodies that would be given more options to fight information disclosure decisions by the OIP were against the bill, saying the measure “goes too far.”

The OIP was designed to administer Hawaii’s two main open records laws: the Uniform Information Practices Act , and the Sunshine Law, coverning public meetings. Those laws were instituted with the clear intent to guarantee the public’s access to government information, and the UIPA goes as far as to say that a government agency “does not have the right to bring an action in circuit court” to contest a ruling by the OIP to release requested information.

Unfortunately, the Sunshine Law -- which has been around since 1975, but was only added to the OIP’s responsibilities in 1988 -- had no such provision. So after the OIP told the Kauai County Council it had to release requested information, the council sued the OIP, and won.

The OIP, which has already been consistently underfunded and understaffed, perhaps rightfully concluded that the Kauai case created an opening through which all its rulings could be contested in court. So SB2858 puts a process in place for judiciary review.

Open government advocates pushed instead for lawmakers to close the door to lawsuits under the Sunshine Law the same way the UIPA did. Alas, the courts are often the final arbiter on any law... even laws written specifically to limit their authority.

SB2858 requires government agencies to notify the OIP of their intent to contest a ruling to release information within 30 days. And the OIP would have 30 days to compile and present its justification for its ruling to the court. Watchdog groups and journalists say SB2858 will only add even more delays to the already slow and arduous process of obtaining government records, delays that can often kill the relevance of the requested information.

But government agencies may not be so eager to contest every request automatically. While SB2858 does set up rules by which they can take OIP decisions to court, it also sets a high standard for them to make their case.

First, a government agency can’t merely tell the OIP it will fight its decision, saving all of its justifications for the judge. Instead, government agencies have to make their best and most complete case to the OIP, because except where there are “extraordinary circumstances,” the courts will only be able to review the same information the OIP had when making their decision.

And secondly, the courts are only allowed to overturn an OIP ruling when it was “palpably erroneous,”or obviously or clearly wrong. If the OIP’s ruling that a record should be released is merely shaky or fuzzy, then, the OIP’s ruling should stand.

These restrictions, as a result, made some government agencies oppose a bill that seemed designed to empower them in resisting public records requests. Danny Mateo, chair of the Maui County Council, testified against the bill, which he said granted the OIP “quasi-judicial authority.”

Nonetheless, SB2858 SD1 HD2 CD1  passed its final reading in the House on Thursday last week, and will most certainly be signed by Gov. Neil Abercrombie.

The Office of the Governor submitted testimony that said it “strongly supports” the bill, as did Cheryl Kakazu Park, whom Gov. Abercrombie appointed to head the OIP. Of course, Park got the job after her predecessor, Cathy Takase, was fired, a move that just happened to come after Takase ruled against the governor’s attempts to withhold a list of names of juidicial candidates. A list that he ultimately and reluctantly was forced to release anyway.

Ryan is also organizing a Sunlight Meetup in Honolulu on Wednesday this week which you are welcome to join.

There have been lots of conversations recently -- most of them provocative in the good sense of that word -- about the success or failure of the open data and/or open government movements. I have just a few thoughts to add that I hope amplify Sunlight's position.

Sunlight believes in open data and open government not because these are abstract goods, but because we want to make government more accountable to ordinary people and less subservient to well-connected special interests. We think it's great that more consumer-facing data will be opened up by the Obama administration (aka "smart disclosure"), and we want the "operating system" of government open and free, along with many others. And to be sure, there are many additional benefits to be had from opening up government data including increasing efficiency, reducing waste, creating new business opportunities and empowering consumers.

But we remain insistent that a central if not the core goal of the transparency movement must be to shift power from the few to the many, by making all the information about who is trying to influence the process and what they get out the other end more accessible to all. That's why we keep a large part of our attention focused on opening up the political influence arena and exposing the lobbying culture, and that's why we called out (back in September 2010) the inadequacies of the Obama administration's implementation of its open government directive; why we criticized the extra-governmental crackdown on WikiLeaks; and why we will continue to press both sides of the aisle and the regulatory agencies to force open the exploding world of "Dark Money" super PACs being employed by Republican and Democratic operatives alike.

I've been at these fights a few decades now, and I have never been more optimistic. The culture of transparency as an instrument of accountability -- by citizens and government alike -- is now generally accepted. The strategy of pushing and pulling Washington -- and every state capitol and every government in the world -- will be done by the tens of millions of people online demanding answers to their questions and who will, eventually, vote based on the answers they receive or don't. Information is the key to action.

The British parliamentary inquiry into the phone hacking scandal by News of the World, the now shuttered tabloid published by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., resulted in the parliamentary committee declaring Murdoch, “not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company.”

The report will no doubt have serious implications for the media mogul’s empire. But viewing the scandal from this side of the Atlantic, it seems it could, and should, impact lobbying regulations in the U.K. as well.

During the inquiry, more than 160 emails between News Corp.’s lobbyist, Frederic Michel, and culture secretary Jeremy Hunt came to light. Hunt was the official responsible for deciding whether News Corp. would be allowed to take full control of British Sky Broadcasting. Other media outlets vehemently opposed the takeover bid, which died when the phone hacking scandal broke. Were it not for the scandal, however, News Corp.’s undisclosed lobbying efforts might have secured approval of the buyout, with neither the public nor other interested parties aware of the close ties between Michel and Hunt.

Lobbying is a self-regulated industry in Britain with virtually no disclosure. Reform efforts have been underway for some time, but prior scandals in Britain have not been enough to push the effort across the finish line. Perhaps the Hunt/Michel email exchange will be enough to convince British lawmakers to pass a comprehensive disclosure law, like the one recommended by the House of Commons in 2009. Among other things, the report recommends that disclosure include, “information about contacts between lobbyists and decision makers—essentially, diary records and minutes of meetings.” The report goes on to elaborate that, “the aim would be to cover all meetings and conversations between decision makers and outside interests.”

While the U.S. has stronger lobbying disclosure than the U.K., our laws also fail to require disclosure of substantive interactions between decision-makers and paid lobbyists, and Sunlight has long supported legislative efforts to amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act to include such contact reporting. Had contact disclosure been in place in the U.K. before the News Corp. scandal, the public would have known of the intense pressure being put on Hunt to approve the bid, competitors might have lobbied harder to ensure they made their case, and Hunt might have sought out other opinions, if for no other reason than to ensure he appeared to have a balanced perspective before making any recommendation.

Sunlight just wrapped up a very successful Transparency Camp, which included dozens of transparency advocates from overseas. One lesson we took away was that we can learn from each other as we work to improve government transparency globally. The News Corp. email lobbying scandal is a teachable moment for those of us on both sides of the pond.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the guest blogger and those providing comments are theirs alone and do not reflect the opinions of the Sunlight Foundation or any employee thereof. Sunlight Foundation is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information within the guest blog.

Today's guest blogger is another example of how all citizens regardless of their professions, can be players in participatory politics. Joining us from Arkansas is Paul J. Spencer. Paul has taught Political Science and History at Catholic High School for Boys for the last 13 years.  He is Chairman of the Regnat Populus 2012 Ballot Question Committee. You can follow him on Twitter @RegnatPopulusAR.

Teaching Government and Politics to high school seniors year after year begins to have a curious effect on the teacher.  I have known other teachers and professors before me that evolved to being confirmed Socialists upon their retirement.  Perhaps it is the youthful innocence of engaged students that begin to observe that money has a greater role in the political process than do actual people that causes this evolution of thought over time.  For myself, there came a time at which I felt that merely teaching my students the problems in our American political system was no longer enough.

I began to recognize a self-perpetuating cycle in American electoral politics today. This whirlpool consists of the following components:

• First, a lack of electoral and lobbying transparency that allows moneyed interests to have a greater voice in the electoral process than actual voters.
• Second, a lack of responsiveness of our elected officials to their constituents who have very little to do with the success of the politician’s reelection campaign.
• Third, a lack of true representation for the interests of citizens above those of money.
• Fourth, a creation of a culture of lack of accountability to voters within the body politic.
• Fifth, voter “disconnect” with their elected representatives.
• Sixth, voter apathy and disengagement with the political process in general.

The sixth component curtails citizens’ ability to properly channel their dissatisfaction with the political process towards a productive end, thusly enabling the cycle to begin anew.

I imagine I began to feel the need to free myself from Vicious Cycle Component #6 after the infamous Citizen’s United vs. FEC Supreme Court ruling  in 2010 which gave corporations unlimited spending ability in political campaigns.  This, coupled with the global financial meltdown of 2008 and the appalling lack of accountability our government placed on those responsible, compelled me to attempt to engage as best I could in fighting to at least expose these injustices as so many ordinary Americans have done before me.  My wife and I joined the Occupy movement in Little Rock, Arkansas last October.  We participated in marches and General Assemblies but over time felt a desire to engage IN the political process to try to effect some change through legislation.  We met at a downtown pizza joint and discussed various options that could be attempted with interested academics and activists.  It turned out that my wife’s brother’s best friend from high school had been working on campaign and lobbying reform (Little Rock is a small town) and we hooked up with him.  We envisioned using the Ballot Initiative process to craft a law to curb some of the worst ethics abuses in a state which had just received a D+ from the Center for Public Integrity on its "Corruption Risk Report Card". We formed a Ballot Question Committee whose name was derived from Arkansas’ State Motto: “Regnat Populus” or “The People Rule”.   To make a long story short, with much collaboration of generously donated legal talent, various Occupiers and also fellow teachers I work with, The Regnat Populus 2012 Ballot Question Committee finally birthed The Campaign Finance and Lobbying Act of 2012.  The components of the Act in brief are to:

• Disallow direct corporate contributions in Arkansas elections (as the law currently provides in Federal elections).
• Raise the “cooling-off period” for the revolving door from legislator to lobbyist from the current 1 year waiting period to 2 years.
• Disallow any gifts or meals whatsoever from lobbyists to legislators (not even a cup of coffee).

Because our movement arose spontaneously in response to real events in America today (namely, the Occupy Wall Street movement), we do not have the luxury of time and do not have large moneyed backers to accomplish our goal of 62,507 signatures by a July 6^th deadline.    However, we certainly do have public opinion on our side.  A recent Arkansas poll showed us to have a 69% voter approval rate for this initiative across all political demographics.  We envisioned a wide spread network of canvassers taking action as citizens to break the cycle of voter apathy and political unresponsiveness.   That is the challenge we now face.  Almost every one of us involved in this committee has full time jobs.  We are teachers, a Presbyterian minister, a nurse, an engineer, a non- profit staffer, retired military, and students combined with the generously donated talent of attorneys that want to work to have a system in which legislators are as accountable to the voters as they are to the influence peddlers in state government.

Thus far, we have garnered $2,525 from individuals that has covered printing and postage costs.  There has been slow response from progressive groups in Arkansas to back the measure as noted by Dr. Jay Barth, Political Science professor at Hendrix University in a recent article.  Some fear the measure may hurt the means that legislators gain information, namely from conferences sponsored by industry.  These travel expenses would be banned by the Act.  This point elucidates the game-changing nature of this Initiative.  Putting lobbyists for childrens’ and anti-poverty advocacy groups, and environmental groups on a level playing field with Koch brother funded lobbyists that want to develop around the lake that supplies Little Rock’s drinking water would completely change the way business is done at the Capitol.

We currently stand at a critical juncture.  We have approximately 100 volunteer canvassers working throughout the state.  We have been endorsed by the local and state chapters of the Sierra Club and have state citizen advocacy groups actively canvassing and working with us.  We have been encouraged by the response of Arkansans when asked if they would like to sign our petition, replying “HELL, yes” after hearing the components and then volunteering to canvass themselves.

Many political insiders have scoffed at our “naïve” attempts to face the odds that stand before us.  But I take comfort in the wisdom of the late historian, Howard Zinn, whose perspective over America’s long span of history is useful to contemplate today.

“TO BE HOPEFUL in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places—and there are so many—where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction. And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.”

We do still need more financial support to spread canvassing efforts to include supporting those that would like to canvass full time.  We do still have a great challenge before us.  But events related to this campaign are unfolding on a daily basis in new and encouraging ways.   We believe that the corrupting influence of money in our political system is the defining issue America faces today.  NOW is the time to act to allow the people to truly rule.

 

Please visit our website www.thepeoplerule2012.com for more information.  I’m just going to come right out and say it-any donations would be greatly appreciated.

             

• In Georgia, Cumming Mayor Ford Gravitt removed citizen journalist Nydia Tisdale  from a recent public meeting. Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens is investigating whether Gravitt violated the state's sunshine laws. In an interview, Gravitt claimed that he was confused about the state’s Open Records Act. He thought it “only permitted people to take still pictures or video, and not both.” Check out the video of Tisdale being removed from the meeting  (around the 2:20 mark) by clicking on the image below. As she is being removed, she maintains, "This is an open and public meeting; I have a right by Georgia law to record this meeting." Ironically, this all took place on the same day that Governor Nathan Deal signed a rewrite of the state's Open Records Act into law. For more information, see Thomas Wheatly’s post on Fresh Loaf.
• After a six-year battle between open government advocates and those who opposed a new open government  bill, Iowa is getting a new state agency dedicated to enforcement of open government. The agency is meant to help solve disputes between governments and record seekers and will work as an enforcer to the state’s current open meetings laws. “The biggest benefit of having this is making sure that public records and meetings are open and available to Iowans,” said Chris Mudge, director of the Iowa Newspaper Association. For the whole story, check out Jason Clayworth’s post on the DesMoines Register.
• In 2011, more than 115 items, including  guns, drugs and money, came up  missing from the Asheville Police Department’s evidence room. Asheville City Council spent $175,000 in taxpayer money to fund an audit of the evidence room. According the the audit contract, a copy of the completed audit should have been made public to the city. The results of the audit were delivered to District Attorney Ron Moore in January. However, Moore  has ignored several open records requests and has not made the results of public. In doing so, Moore has failed to comply with state law requiring a response to open records requests “as promptly as possible.” Members of the local news media and the North Carolina Press Association are currently signing a petition to have the information made public. For the whole story, see David Forbes’ post on Mountain Xpress.
• Last week, we took a look at the aftermath of a contested mayoral election in New Mexico. The election is in the news again this week. The Doña Ana County district attorney’s office is investigating the possibility that the Sunland Park City Council violated the state's Open Meetings Act when it selected a new mayor following the election scandal. The meeting's venue was too packed to house the entire crowd. Many people – including at least two who wanted to ask for the appointment to the mayor’s job – were kept by police from entering. Though the state’s Open Meeting Act has rarely been enforced with criminal charges, it requires that anyone who tries to attend a public meeting of a government body be allowed in. For more information, see Heath Haussamen’s post on NMPoltics.
• On Tuesday, there was a public meeting in Dixon, Illinois to discuss allegation that the city comptroller embezzled $30 million dollars from the city. The meeting featured Dixon business owner and former candidate for state representative Li Arellano. Arellano focused the meeting on making city government more transparent.  A major point in the meeting was the city’s low transparency score from the Illinois Policy Institute and how the cities website failed to contain easily accessible financial information as required. According to the Illinois Policy Institute "A public posting of Dixon’s check register (expenditures) might have stopped the public corruption from happening in the first place." For Ulysses S. Arn’s take, see his post on USOFarn.

The Sunlight Foundation sent a letter to the FCC urging them to stay strong and adopt transparency rules that would require broadcasters to place their entire "political file" online, rather than bowing to industry demands that a redacted, aggregated version be made available on the Web.

Under the law, broadcasters are required to make public their political file, information including which groups are buying political ads, which candidates the ads support and when and where the ads aired. But for too long, "public" has meant the information has been buried in the file cabinets in the offices of the local broadcasters. Yes, that's right, in this day of the Internet, if I want to access public information about who is running political ads in the state where grew up, I have to get on a plane to find out.

The FCC is poised to change that. Unfortunately, it seems the broadcasters, ever wary of making anything public, are suggesting that the FCC adopt a bifurcated system where the only information available online would be redacted and aggregated. The detailed information, you know, the stuff that is actually meaningful, would remain on paper, hidden from public view, in a file cabinet somewhere.

Sunlight hopes the FCC will see the broadcasters' proposal for what it is, a transparent (pardon the pun) effort to keep the public in the dark about who is paying for our elections.

Update: There is no doubt the broadcasters have used all the weapons in their arsenal to convince the FCC to adopt weak disclosure rules. The week before the FCC is scheduled to decide a matter, all contacts with the Commission are prohibited under the FCC's "Sunshine Rule." The Sunshine period for the broadcast rule decision begins today, as the issue is supposed to be decided on the 27th. Conveniently, the NAB held their convention from April 14-19 in Las Vegas, and based on FCC ex parte disclosure reports, the broadcasters took the opportunity to make their case to the commissioners in Sin City, getting the last word before the Sunshine Period begins. Not that we are complaining. It's great that there is such complete disclosure on the FCC's site. (We only wish Congress would do the same.)

Additionally, in a report today, ProPublic points out the irony of big news outlets that normally demand transparency in this case fighting for secrecy. There's no question the FCC Commissioners will have gotten the message against transparency loud and clear. We hope they have also heard us.

Sunlight Foundation Letter to FCC on Broadcast Rules

• In DC, Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) must provide the DC Auditor with quarterly financial reports. The DC Auditor audits financial information, maintains a database of the information, and ensures that the reports are in compliance. Sunlight’s own Matt Rumsey thinks they should disclose this information to the public, maintaining, “It would be a small step to also make this information readily available to the public.” Rumsey provides a clear plan for how this could be done: “The press and interested members of the public could then monitor the ANC financial reports and identify mistakes, omissions, and inconsistencies that may have been missed.” Because of their lack of financial report disclosure, it “takes extremely diligent individuals significant effort and time to uncover improper or missing information.” For his entire take, see his post on Greater Greater Washington. 
• Sunland Park, New Mexico recently had a tumultuous mayoral election that ended with a criminal investigation for voting fraud, bribery, and abuse of taxpayer dollars. After the contested election,  the Sun-News filed a public records act request to obtain a list of donors who contributed to the campaign. However, Sunland Park doesn't require campaign finance reports to be filed by candidates. Phil Banks of Common Cause of Southern New Mexico worries that the lack of disclosure will cause elected officials to “take action to advance their contributors' interests.” He maintains, “the obvious thing is just simply the fact that individuals who contribute — especially large amounts of money — to campaigns generally expect some reciprocity as a result. It doesn't necessarily mean there will be favoritism. It leads to the appearance of it being inappropriate, but it's not always." Banks confirmed that Common Cause is forming a Las Cruces-appointed panel to revise its campaign fundraising rules. The city is currently seeking two community members to serve on the panel. For more information, see Diana Alba Soular’s post on Las Cruces Sun News. 

• In January, Torrance County commissioners flirted with an Open Meetings Law violation by trying to pass a resolution banning public recording of their hearings. While this resolution was curbed, they recently introduced a proposal that will make it harder for citizens record hearings. The resolution calls for 24 hours written notice for any recording of meetings, requires cameras to be pointed only at commissioners, and requires citizens who srecord meetings to stay in a  designated area. According to commissioner Lonnie Freyburger, “We were getting interrupted and different things and there was editing being done on the YouTube and we wanted to get a true and accurate recording of what was going on.” The commissioners are discussing making a county record of all hearings available on their website. However,  Gwyneth Doland of the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government  maintains, “... that does not — and should not — preclude the right of members of the public and the media from recording Torrance County commission meetings that are held in a public facility paid for with county taxpayer dollars.” For the whole story, check out Rob Nikolewski’s post on New Mexico Watchdog.
• Gainesville Citizens CARE filed a lawsuit to annul a $3 billion Power Purchase Agreement contract negotiated by Gainesville Regional Utilities  and approved by the Gainesville City Council for a 100 megawatt biomass incinerator proposed by American Renewables. The lawsuit alleges  that “the contract negotiated behind closed doors in violation of the Sunshine Law be declared void and without legal effect.” According to Josh Schlossberg, “changes allegedly made in secret, without public disclosure, include an extension of the contract from 20 to 30 years, a cost increase of 25%, and the removal of a ‘back door out clause’ that would’ve allowed ‘the contract to be cancelled after its last regulatory approval and before the commencement of construction.’” For the whole story, check out his post on No Biomass Burning.