If the early campaign-season barrage of negative advertising is any indicator, the 2012 election is going to be a decidedly uncivil one. According to the Wesleyan Media Project, 70% of advertising in the current presidential campaign has been negative – as compared to just 9% at this stage four years ago.

But just how well do these negative ads work? Historically, political science research has had a hard time uncovering much evidence for their effectiveness. But recent research is more and more finding that they do indeed move voters.

A recent survey by Arizona State professors Kim L. Fridkin and Patrick J. Kenney finds that the more “uncivil” advertisements voters see about a candidate, the more negatively they evaluate that candidate, as long as the ads are also seen as relevant.

Additionally, the researchers find that some voters are more sensitive to attack ads than others, and that attack ads are generally more effective in deflating challengers than incumbents. Their article, “Variability in Citizens’ Reactions to Different Types of Negative Campaigns,” was published last year in the American Journal of Political Science and makes for some fascinating reading.

To assess the impact of negative advertising, the scholars surveyed 1,045 citizens across 21 different 2006 Senate races both before and after the election.

They also had a team of researchers code the ads in those races on two dimensions: civility and relevance. They found that overall, 47% of the ads were “uncivil” and 12% were “irrelevant.” They defined civility as “an explicit use of harsh, shrill, or pejorative adjectives.” (e.g. “After all these years, can’t he offer more than smears and distortions?”) Relevance described whether the ads focused on the candidate’s record (e.g., “The Senator voted to give tax breaks for companies that move overseas”) or not (e.g. “My opponent parties with Playboy playmates”).

In general, the more voters were exposed to ads that were both uncivil and relevant, the more their evaluation of the candidates declined.

“What is impressive,” Fridkin and Kenney write, “is that the relevance and civility of advertising exert a strong impact on candidate evaluations, even controlling for party and ideological proximity.”

The researchers also found that negative press coverage independently reduced the favorability for incumbents, though not as clearly for challengers (presumably because challengers don’t get as much press coverage).

Unsurprisingly, the majority of respondents said they do not like negative ads. Overall, 82% of respondents either agreed somewhat (35%) or strongly (47%) that “some negative advertisements are so nasty that I stop paying attention.”

But some were less bothered by attack ads than others. In particular, the researchers found that the following traits were all independently associated with a higher tolerance for negative political advertisements:

• strong partisanship (both parties)
• following campaigns closely
• conservative political beliefs
• being a man
• being young
• a lack of political sophistication (i.e. inability to adequately place both parties on an ideological scale)

Interestingly, the voters who dislike the ads the most are also the most likely to be swayed by them, while those less bothered are also less likely to be affected. Those who have more tolerance are also less likely to see the ads as irrelevant and uncivil in the first place.

One encouraging sign, however, is that the research did find some support for a backlash effect. “When incumbents stray away from relevant messages and produce and disseminate irrelevant and uncivil messages,” Fridkin and Kenny wrote, “citizens react by lowering their evaluations of these incumbents.” In other words, voters get mad when incumbents unleash irrelevant attacks. So enough may be enough. But then again, they don’t punish challengers as harshly, according to the research.

Then again, with super PACs now around to run negative ads, candidates can worry less about the backlash. Research by Deborah Jordan Brooks and Michael Murov of Dartmouth (which I wrote about last week) finds that attack ads are much more effective when done by independent groups, precisely because they shield candidates from the backlash

If Fridkin and Kenny are correct, then there is one antidote to the effectiveness of attack ads: a bunch of highly partisan, active voters without much political sophistication, especially young conservative males. These individuals appear to have built up a resistance to attack ads. But then again, imagine an electorate filled with them.

A Connecticut bill has been making the rounds in transparency circles recently: HB 5556, a toothy, bipartisan approach to corporate and union campaign financial disclosure, introduced as the state’s response to Citizens United. It quickly passed the CT House 94 - 57 and the Senate 20 - 15 on May 8th, and now all eyes are on Governor Dan Malloy to see whether he’ll veto the bill or sign it into law this week. Although Malloy authored the original text, the bill has been significantly beefed up since it left his office and entered the Government Administration and Elections Committee -- so much so that Malloy’s office has been resistant to showing their support.

But they should get over themselves. It’s refreshing to see a state legislature take such a dedicated approach to campaign finance disclosure reform, especially in an election year. Here’s a round-up of some of the bolder transparency-related measures CT legislators are trying to pass with HB 5556:

• Super PACs and other 501(c)s engaged in campaign-related activity would have to...
• Report all donations over $1000 and publish the names and addresses of these donors on the organization’s website.
• Report any transfer of funds marked for political activity, including the full name and addresses of all individuals involved in making the donation and transfer -- even when the receiving end is another organization. (Translation: Say goodbye to shadowy front groups and intermediaries...)
• Corporations, unions, and other legally organized bodies would have to have their boards pre-authorize each and every campaign-related disbursement over $4000 through a vote. Votes of individual members and the resulting expenditures would then need to be published on the organization’s website within 48 hours of voting.
• All political ads would be required to not only list the top five donors at the end of the ad (strengthening current “Stand by Your Ad” provisions), but to also include a URL pointing to a website where people can see all the organization’s donors -- including the names and addresses of every donor who gave more than $1000.

This isn’t an exhaustive list of HB 5556’s provisions, but these requirements speak to the boldness of Connecticut’s approach. In fact, many of the measures listed above are kin to those in the DISCLOSE Act, a Sunlight-supported federal campaign finance bill currently languishing in Congress.

HB 5556 isn’t a perfect bill (note the strange rider about military voting and the potential "chilling" of grassroots/citizen lobbying near election day), but as far as its approach to transparency measures are concerned, it should be commended and seriously considered as a (constitutional) solution to a problem faced by states everywhere, at time when reform is needed most.

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 the three months before congressional leaders announced that they are once again opening the process to suspend tariffs, at least 71 private companies have already lobbied to get their own exemption and nine more have registered. Each one has a product they’d like to import a little more cheaply. So far this year, the companies report lobbying expenditures of $14 million on issues including this one – but if history is any guide, it may be well worth the expense.

The last time Congress passed a miscellaneous tariff bill (MTB), in 2010, it cost taxpayers $298 million in lost revenue over three years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Members have until tonight to send in provisions they want included in this year’s legislation, according to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.

In short, the MTB is legislation written for corporations, by corporations to save them money on products they import and use in manufacturing. The companies solicit members of Congress to introduce bills reducing their tariffs and those bills eventually get rolled into the MTB, a long green eyeshade document that few members of Congress likely will take the time to read. Call it “nearmarking.” With earmarks now banned, critics say the tariff bill offers members of Congress an alternate route to get special favors for pet concerns at taxpayer expenses. Republican Sens. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., have introduced legislation would send all tariff requests directly to the International Trade Commission (ITC), cutting Congress out of the process.

“There is no good reason why businesses go to members of Congress and not directly to the International Trade Commission with their petitions,” said DeMint spokesman Wesley Denton.

But guess who’s pushing the tariff bill? Sixty freshman Republican lawmakers –who generally have been among the loudest voices against special dealing and for deficit reduction -- recently wrote to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., urging favorable treatment of the MTB. They argued that it’s a bill that will spur American jobs.

Lobbying

Congress considers tariff legislation almost every two years. And while heavy corporate lobbying on it is typical, it's hard to compare historic spending trends because lobbying records weren't digitized until 2008 and congressional lobbying records didn't begin tracking lobbying specifically on the miscellaneous tariff bill until the last few years.

Lobbying disclosure information reported to the Senate Office of Public Records.

But the number of tariff suspensions enacted by Congress appears to be on the upswing. In 2004, Congress passed an MTB with 433 tariff suspensions. Two years later, the MTB that passed two years later suspended duties on 280 products and generated a tariff savings of about $660 million for corporations according to a study conducted by Capital Trade, Incorporated, an economic consulting firm that focuses on international trade. But later that year, Congress approved a second bill suspending duties on another 580 products. During the 111th Congress, which ran from 2009 through 2010, lobbying records on file with the Senate show 192 companies with $385 million in lobbying expenses on tariff issues. Of that amount, $205 million was spent in the final six months before passage of H.R. 4380, the United States Manufacturing Enhancement Act of 2010. The bill included duty suspensions on 665 products, benefiting 113 corporations, according to data provided by the House Ways and Means committee.

An examination of the 2010 bill and lobbying records related to the MTB provides vivid examples of how members of Congress use the tariff legislation to do favors for home-state businesses.

Bayer

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., submitted 28 requests to suspend duties on products for Bayer. All but three made it into law. Overall, Bayer got a remarkable 62 duty suspensions from 15 members of Congress, making the German drug manufacturer the top beneficiary of the bill. Mary Petrovic, Rep. Cleaver's press secretary, defended the support, noting that Bayer employs a number of people in his home district in Missouri.

Bayer and its subsidiaries spent $8.3 million lobbying the bill and other issues in 2009 and 2010 according to records disclosed with the Senate. The corporation has reported spending $7.2 lobbying the issue and others this session so far.

Cleaver also received $5,500 in campaign contributions from employees of Bayer and their family members during the 2007-2008 and the 2009-2010 election cycles. So far this cycle he’s received $2,000 from people associated with Bayer, according to InfluenceExplorer.com.

Michelin

An examination of lobbying records disclosed in 2010 showed that the tire manufacturer Michelin lobbied on 21 bills introduced by Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to reimburse duties they paid on tire products. Michelin, which operates a number of plants in Graham’s state, reported spending at least $1.1 million on issues including tariffs and was the only company that reported lobbying on the 21 original bills dealing with tariff reimbursements that Graham introduced. The provisions Michelin wanted made it into the final bill.

Tracking which corporations benefit from provisions that originated on the Senate side is harder than the House side, because the Senate traditionally has not revealed which members requested each provision. It’s not clear whether the Senate will adopt the House transparency process this time around. That potentially could shed more light on relationships between senators and the corporations they help through this bill.

Dan Ikenson, an expert in trade issues at the Cato Institute, favors of reducing all tariffs unilaterally. But he called, the MTB is a good thing even though it only temporarily suspends duties on a limited number of products. He described the measure as “gradual progress” towards creating more competition in the markets.

Ikenson, however, doesn’t agree with all of the rules that go into writing the MTB. Only allowing import products to be considered if they are not produced in the United States is bad for competition., he said. Magnesium, for instance, is only produced by one company in the United States and therefore has little incentive to make prices competitive, Ikenson said. He argued that lifting duties on imported magnesium would allow U.S. manufacturers to get better prices.

“We’re picking winners and losers in our markets by placing duties on certain items,” Ikenson said.

While masses of people are flocking to liquor stores to play today's record setting Mega Millions lottery, those behind the games benefit from much shorter odds in the political game, using influence to ensure big payoffs.

Take Gtech, a gaming technology giant based in Providence, R.I., that has contracts with 16 of the states that participate in Mega Millions to provide lottery terminals and other services. The company, its PAC, employees and their family members have given $4.1 million in campaign contributions to state and federal-level candidates and party committees dating back to 1991. It's spent $3.4 million lobbying the federal government since 1997, according to the Sunlight Foundation's Influence Explorer.

Gtech has also been a revolving door destination for state lottery officials. In 1999, in a lengthy profile of the company, the Washington Monthly reported,

Three directors of the New York state lottery have gone to work for the company as lobbyists or consultants, as have numerous directors from other states. After a conflict over Massachusetts' lottery, director James Hosker, a close friend of Gtech's, took the job managing Kentucky's lottery and secured a sweet deal for the company in that state. Where did Hosker move next? A lucrative job on the Gtech payroll.

In a 2007 article, the Journal News in Lower Hudson Valley, N.Y., detailed numerous other incidents in Gtech's past, including:

- Hiring the former patronage chief for then-New York Gov. Mario Cuomo as a $20,000-a-month consultant. Tonio Burgos held the job for about three months until the deal leaked out.

• Awarding a former gubernatorial aide in Missouri a 10-year, $80,000-a-year consulting contract after GTECH won that state's business.

• Hiring lobbyists in Texas who included two former aides to then-Gov. George W. Bush, as well as former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes. In 1996, public pressure led to Barnes' contract being bought out for $23 million.

An Italian firm, Lottomatica S.p.A., acquired Gtech in August 2006. According to its most recent annual report, Gtech had $1.3 billion in revenues, was active in 51 countries, and provided its services to 26 of the 41 online lottery authorities in the United States.

Lottery suppliers like Gtech aren't the gambling interests making sure bets on politics: casinos and other gaming companies have contributed more than $557 million to federal and state candidates and political committees since 1989, according to data in Influence Explorer.

Senate Democrats unveiled their version of the DISCLOSE Act today. (We wrote about the House bill, introduced last month, here.) Senator Whitehouse was joined by approximately 35 of his Democratic colleagues on legislation that has been described as a pure disclosure and disclaimer bill, with none of the controversial provisions that caused the DISCLOSE Act to fail in the Senate by one vote in 2010. The Senate’s laser-like focus on disclosure and disclaimer provisions mirrors Sunlight’s recommendations in our draft Stop Undisclosed Payments in Elections from Ruining Public Accountability Act (the SUPERPAC Act). By focusing on disclosure and disclaimer provisions only, with no carve outs for select groups or bans on certain types of contributions, the 2012 version of the DISCLOSE leaves opponents of the previous bill with little or nothing to object to--unless they believe our elections should continue to be paid for by dark money.

Specifically, the bill will create robust reporting requirements for Super PACs, corporations, unions and nonprofit organizations that decide to make campaign expenditures. It will also require ads to contain disclaimers by the top officials of such groups, similar to the stand by your ad mandates required of candidates.

Voters have been bombarded with campaign ads largely paid for by outside groups, with much of that money totally undisclosed. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, while touting the importance of disclosure, created a system in which money laundering could be used to funnel unlimited secret money into our political system. The DISCLOSE Act is a crucial step to address the corrupting influence of that money on our elections and our elected officials.

Senator Schumer has promised to hold a hearing on the bill in the Rules Committee next week. It will be interesting to see how his colleagues, including John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Lisa Murkowski and others who have expressed concern about the impact of the Citizens United decision, will react to this leaner version of DISCLOSE. We hope they recognize that the bill does nothing more, and nothing less, than lift the cloud that has been obscuring money in politics so that all citizens can know who is paying for our elections.

Sunshine Week presents the perfect opportunity each year to recognize the importance of transparency and open government. This year, with the ever-increasing influence of often secretive super PACs in our elections, the need for transparency is even more clear.

We have an opportunity for greater disclosure right now. A new bill -- the DISCLOSE Act 2012  will, if passed by Congress, require:

• Corporations and other outside groups to stand by their campaign ads -- with their leader and top financial contributors disclosed in the ads.

• Public reporting by corporations, unions, super PACs and other outside groups to the FEC within 24 hours of making a campaign expenditure or transferring funds to other groups for campaign-related activity (of $10,000 or more).

• Corporations and other outside groups to disclose campaign-related spending to shareholders and organization members.

• Lobbyists to disclose campaign-related expenditures in conjunction with their lobbying activities.

In the wake of the two-year-old infamous Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United v. FEC  -- which allowed unlimited and undisclosed money to flow into our elections, an increase in new super PACs has now led to an increase in the amount of money making it’s way into our elections -- to the tune of over 74.8 million (and counting)! This is no cheap change.

Help get the word out by writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. Let your community know that it’s time to expose dark money behind our elections. It’s time to pass the DISCLOSE Act 2012.

Though we can see what these super PACs are spending their money on, the rules that let us see who’s giving them money are weak and don’t let us see the whole picture. Without disclosure, we can’t know if the ads we’re watching are funded by corporate VIPs with hidden agendas or everyday people like you and me.

If you want to see if your rep is a co-sponsor on the bill, look them up here and encourage them to keep up the support. If they are not co-sponsors, let them know too that it’s time to open up our government.

The bill has not yet made its way to Senate, so make sure to ask your senator to introduce a complementary bill and bring transparency into our government.

Writing a letter to the editor is easy and takes only a few minutes with our online tool -- we’ll walk you through each step. Lawmakers pay close attention to what goes on in the newspapers of their districts. A letter to the editor will help raise awareness about the need for transparency and accountability in your community. And it sends a clear message to your representative: we’re not afraid to speak out and demand transparency in our elections.

Want to learn more about the DISCLOSE Act? You can follow our updated blog posts about it here:

While journalistic skill and technique are essential for writing a good investigative article, we often take it for granted that journalists have access to the information they need to write complex news stories. Without publicly available data, much of our news would not be possible. We've been looking at investigative articles as part of an ongoing series called "Back to the Source" for the last several months. Now we've decided to amp it up a bit and make redacted visuals to explicitly demonstrate how little the public would know without laws and regulations that force the government to make the data it has publicly available.

In honor of Sunshine Week we decided to create "The News Without Transparency." We took original investigative articles and manually blacked out all the information that would not be known without existing transparency measures. It is worth taking a look at just how little we would know.

Some examples we found notable are below, and the ongoing series is available here.

The News Without Transparency: Military Defense Contractors, Lobbyists Support Mrs. McKeon

The News Without Transparency: Pentagon Contractors Flock to Mrs. McKeon

Military defense contractors and lobbyists are rushing to support the wife of Congressional House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon in her bid for California state assembly, according to a Salon article in early February.

This article would not have been possible without public access to campaign finance and lobbying data.

The article reports that in the first few months of fundraising, Patricia McKeon was able to collect $19,200 from defense contractors or their lobbyists. This includes $3,000 from Lockheed Martin - a company currently locked in a battle to maintain funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet. It also includes donations from lobbying firm Beau Boulter LLC, which lobbies on behalf of Proxy Aviations, and Bruce Leftwich, a DC-based government affairs specialist.

The California Secretary of State's website provides campaign finance data for all candidates running for public office, including Patricia McKeon's. The data can be searched by contributions received or made, expenditures made, late and high dollar contributions, and late independent expenditures. The contributions listed on Mrs. McKeon's disclosure page include the following...

Click here to read the full text of our analysis.

The News Without Transparency: U.S. Approved Business With Blacklisted Nations

The News Without Transparency: U.S. Approves Business With Blacklisted Nations

The New York Times published an article in December 2010 investigating the U.S. government’s approval of American companies doing business with countries blacklisted for sponsoring terrorism, such as Iran. According to the article, the Treasury Department has granted almost 10,000 licenses for business deals involving these blacklisted nations, some of which were impacted by political influence.

In addition to good reporting, the public availability of data was essential to making this such a meaningful investigative piece. That said, much of the underlying data for this article was hard to obtain, and the article itself says that even after the Times filed a FOIA request, “The process took three years, and the government heavily redacted many documents. . . ”

We investigated and have highlighted what data is publicly available and what data isn’t, but in some cases can be obtained through FOIA.

The article highlights how much less business the United States did with Iran than China or Europe did, pointing out that “…in the first quarter of this year, 0.02 percent of American exports went to Iran.” The U.S. Census Bureau provides monthly and annual datasets detailing American foreign trade, which provides information such as the data point used in the article. The annual report for 2010 is available here and can be viewed as a PDF or as a zip file for text or excel formats.

Click here to read our full analysis of the data behind this article

The News Without Transparency: Obama Rewards Campaign Contributors

The News Without Transparency: Obama Rewards Campaign Contributors

An in-depth analysis of Obama's 2008 campaign contributors conducted by iWatch News in 2011 determined that in certain circumstances major bundlers ended up receiving appointments to key White House positions, invitations to White House events, and stimulus money awarded through contracts. This analysis required a high level of investigative journalism skill, but would not have been possible without public access to several data sources.

The iWatch analysis frequently returns to the story of Donald H. Gips, a Colorado businessman and bundler for Obama. His story provides a useful frame for illustrating the data sources that provided essential information for this piece.

The article states that Gips bundled over $500,000 for Obama in 2008.  Presidential candidates are not required to report their bundlers, but both Obama and McCain chose to do so in 2008. The Center for Responsive Politics makes available the list from 2008 as well as a list of 2012 bundlers for those candidates who have chosen to disclose. While the candidate usually only discloses the name of the bundler, CRP adds value by including additional information such as the total amount contributed, the name of the bundler, the city and state, and employer. The information also contains the total amount the bundler has contributed him or herself to the specified candidate since 1990. Bundlers are additionally broken down by industry. A search for Gips shows that he bundled over $500,000 in 2008 and has individually donated $32,391 since 1990.

Click here to read the full text of our analysis.

The News Without Transparency: $52 Steaks on Menu as AT&T Feted Lawmakers During T-Mobile Push

The News Without Transparency: $52 Steaks on Menu as AT&T Feted Lawmakers During T-Mobile Push

The proposed AT&T/T-Mobile merger dominated the news in Washington last fall. It caused quite the stir, with numerous outlets reporting on AT&T's massive lobbying efforts to push through the merger. Bloomberg was one such news outlet, reporting a story of expensive steaks and 'lobbyist's libations' in early September. The story focused on the numerous swanky fundraisers AT&T was hosting as well as their generous campaign donations to key lawmakers.

This was a detailed investigative piece that involved a good deal of skilled journalism. It would not have been possible without public access to campaign finance data and lobbying disclosure information.

The article begins describing the lavish fundraisers AT&T had been hosting for lawmakers, citing Sunlight's Party Time data. Sunlight's Party Time data is free and available for anyone to use. We manually collect fundraiser and event invitations and put them online. They are searchable by a variety of of criteria including committee, leadership PAC, beneficiary, host, and venue.

Click here to read the full text of our analysis.

For the latest proof of the importance of money in politics, look no further than the Wednesday decision by Bob Kerrey to make a comeback bid for his old Senate seat and the excitement it is generating.

Never mind that Nebraska's one-time Democratic governor and senator has spent the last decade living in New York City's legendarily hip Greenwich Village. Never mind that he had to use his sister's address to register to vote in the state where he was born. Never mind that he hasn't been on a ballot since 1994 and will have to reintroduce himself to a new generation of Nebraskans.

He should have plenty of dough to help him do so. The one constant throughout the brainy, mercurial Kerrey's career has been his track record as a money magnet.

Sunlight's Influence Explorer shows that Kerrey raised nearly $10 million during the 12 years he was in the Senate. That's on top of the $681,000 that records on file with Nebraska's Accountability and Disclosure office show he raised for his first race, a successful 1982 campaign for governor. As chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from 1995-96, Kerrey helped rake in another $33 million for his party.

Nor did his fundraising prowess end with his political career: The New School of Social Research, which Kerrey headed from 2001 until last year, credits him with raising more than $110 million to spark a major expansion of the Manhattan-based university. Benefactors included such bold-faced names as fashion designers Donna Karan and Diane von Furstenburg and media mogul Barry Diller. Influence Explorer also shows the New School's sophistication in the ways of Washington: The university has spent nearly $4 million lobbying, and has been rewarded with some $22 million in federal grants and contracts.

Like former Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and current Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., before him, Kerrey is demonstrating the power of a proven fundraiser to displace the ambitions of lesser-known locals.

"I gave up my seat on the University of Nebraska Board of Regents based on his word," Chuck Hasselbrook, a Democrat who says he entered the Senate race only after Kerrey assured him he wouldn't, told the Christian Science Monitor.

The Nebraska race is likely to be hard-fought and expensive, and it could be key to determining whether Democrats manage to maintain control of the Senate, where they now hold a 53-47 vote edge (a margin that includes two independents, Connecticut's Joe Lieberman, and Vermont's Bernie Sanders, who caucus with the Democrats). It's not unheard-of in such circumstances for parties to turn to a familiar face with a proven track record of bringing in the bucks. In 2000, when Democratic leaders worried that then-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani would enter the race for the seat of retiring Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N,Y., Rep. Nita Lowey, a veteran Democrat from the New York City suburbs, had to give up her hopes of moving to the other side of the Capitol in favor of Clinton. The then-first lady ran her campaign for New York's Senate seat from the White House. And in 2010, when the retirement of Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., opened up an opportunity for Republicans, party leaders recruited Coats, who served in the Senate during the 1990s, over a former GOP congressman and state senator who also wanted the nomination.

Kerrey, 68, is a former Navy Seal who walks -- and sometimes jogs -- on a prosthesis, the result of losing part of his right leg to a grenade attack in Vietnam. His his war record came under a cloud, however, in 2001 when he acknowledged participating in an attack where Vietnamese civilians, many of them women and children, were killed. First elected to the Senate in 1988, Kerrey four years later launched a campaign for president. He lost the Democratic nomination to Bill Clinton in a campaign not marked by good feelings. Kerrey famously called the future president "an unusually good liar." Back in the Senate, where he won a second term in 1994, he was an early advocate for health care reform and Social Security reform. In 2000, he abruptly announced that he would not seek a third term and moved to New York to head the New School. In 2005, he briefly considered challenging Michael Bloomberg for New York City mayor.

The 2006 race for the seat that Kerrey is now seeking cost $20 million -- a figure driven up by the personal funds poured into the race by millionaire Republican candidate Pete Ricketts. Democratic incumbent Ben Nelson won, despite being outspent nearly two-to-one -- a sign that while money talks, it can only walk you so far.

(Keenan Steiner contributed reporting for this post)

     

An in-depth analysis of Obama's 2008 campaign contributors conducted by iWatch News in 2011 determined that in certain circumstances major bundlers ended up receiving appointments to key White House positions, invitations to White House events, and stimulus money awarded through contracts. This analysis required a high level of investigative journalism skill and a significant amount of time. It would not have been possible, however, without access to a number of data sources.

The iWatch analysis frequently returns to the story of Donald H. Gips, a Colorado businessman and bundler for Obama. His story provides a useful frame for illustrating the data sources that provided essential information for this piece.

Accessing Campaign Finance Data Regarding Bundlers

The article states that Gips bundled over $500,000 for Obama in 2008.  Presidential candidates are not required to report their bundlers, but both Obama and McCain chose to do so in 2008. The Center for Responsive Politics makes available the list from 2008 as well as a list of 2012 bundlers for those candidates who have chosen to disclose. While the candidate usually only discloses the name of the bundler, CRP adds value by including additional information such as the total amount contributed, the name of the bundler, the city and state, and employer. The information also contains the total amount the bundler has contributed him or herself to the specified candidate since 1990. Bundlers are additionally broken down by industry. A search for Gips shows that he bundled over $500,000 in 2008 and has individually donated $32,391 since 1990.

While presidential candidates only disclose bundlers voluntarily, bundler information for candidate committees, leadership PACs, and political party committees is required to be disclosed by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. Bundler information for these entities can be found using the Federal Election Commission website. In addition, Sunlight's Influence Explorer also provides bundler information for registered lobbyists and lobbying firms in a searchable and user-friendly format.

Monitoring Staff Changes in the White House

After Obama won the election, the article states that Gips was put in charge of hiring in the White House and subsequently appointed as the U.S. ambassador to South Africa. The White House provides a searchable database of nominations and appointments that indicates the name of the nominee, the position and agency, the formal nomination date, and the date and result of the confirmation vote. Gips does not appear in that list, as his position did not require him to be appointed. A press release from Change.gov, Obama's transition website, however, lists Gips among several other staff announcements. The U.S. Department of State provides a list of embassies, which can be used to find information about American consulates around the world, including the name of the current ambassador.

Tracking Stimulus Funds

The article points out that Level 3 Communications LLC, where Gips was formerly vice president, was later the recipient of $13.8 million in stimulus funds. Information regarding the recipients of stimulus funds is available from three places:

• Information regarding stimulus funds is available from Recovery.gov. Level 3 EON, a subsidiary of Level 3 Communications, appears as having received $13.7 million in six awards.
• You can find information about the stimulus as well as all contracts and grants data on USASpending.gov. A search on this site shows that Level 3 Communications received just under $80,000 in awards from the Department of Defense and the Department of Agriculture.
• Our Influence Explorer also provides contract data in a more user-friendly format.

Viewing White House Visitors

The article also discusses bundlers receiving access to the White House, such as invitations to events or meetings. The Obama White House has voluntarily chosen to disclose the security records that detail those who enter the White House. These Visitor Logs have been criticized for a lack of accuracy and completeness, but can be valuable for use in analyses such as the iWatch report. The records show 18 visits by Gips to the White House between August 17, 2009 and April 1, 2011. Among the 18 are two trips to see the president and various trips to other White House staff such as Jenny Cizner, who works in the Office of Presidential Personnel, and Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to the president.

---

"The News Without Transparency" shows you what the news would look like without public access to information. Laws and regulations that force the government to make the data it has publicly available are absolutely vital, along with services that take that raw data and make it easy for reporters to write sentences like the ones we've redacted in the piece above. If you have an article you'd like us to put through the redaction machine, please send us an email at mbuck@sunlightfoundation.com.