Sunlight Foundation

As senator, Santorum was obsessed with abortion

The United States Senate deals with a wide range of issues, both foreign and domestic, but the ones that preoccupied Rick Santorum the most during his tenure appear to have been gynecological. An examination of the surging GOP presidential contender's record using the Sunlight Foundation's Capitol Words (LINK) reveals the degree to which Santorum favored topics such as abortion, fetuses and wombs when he was serving in Congress' upper chamber.

According to our analysis, between January 1, 1996 and January 3, 2007 (his last day as a member of the Senate), the then-junior senator from Pennsylvania spoke the following words more than anybody else in the Senate: abortion, partial-birth, fetus, fetal, womb. He also uttered the following phrases more than anyone else: “base of the skull,” and “life of the mother."

Total Santorum utterances (1/1/1996-1/3/2007) Total Senate utterances (1/1/1996-1/3/2007) Santorum % Rank
abortion 1014 8328 12.2% #1
partial-birth 379 1787 21.2% #1
fetus 145 780 18.6% #1
"partial birth" 116 466 24.9% #1
fetal 99 1134 8.7% #1
womb 90 369 24.4% #1
"base of the skull" 34 48 70.8% #1
"life of the mother" 74 307 24.1% #1
Though he was just one of 100 senators, Santorum was responsible for approximately one of eight utterances of “abortion” during the ten years covered by our analysis, and approximately one in five utterances of “fetus” and “partial-birth.”

As a Senator, Santorum was the sponsor of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which criminalized the so-called  “partial-birth abortion,"  as opponents term a controversial procedure for ending late-term pregnancies. Doctors who perform this procedure now face a fine and up to two years in prison. He was also a co-sponsor of a number of bills that would have prohibited children from crossing state lines to receive an abortion, and would have required abortion providers to tell pregnant women aware that the abortion will cause their unborn child pain.

As a candidate, Santorum has built a campaign around his strong opposition to abortion and gay rights. He wants to ban all abortions and to ban all same-sex marriage.

Santorum recently went so far as to compare himself to “a Jesus candidate.” He was not, however, the “Jesus” Senator. According to Capitol Words, that distinction belongs to Robert C. Byrd.

 

HOW WE DID THIS:

The numbers in this post were generated using Capitol Words, a Sunlight Foundation project that analyzes the frequency with which different terms appear in the Congressional Record. We used the Capitol Words API to calculate how often Sen. Santorum used each phrase versus the entire Senate during the time periods in which Santorum was in office and for which we have data. An example query is:

http://capitolwords.org/api/dates.json?apikey=API_KEY_GOES_HERE&phrase=partial-birth&start_date=1996-01-01&end_date=2007-01-03&chamber=Senate&bioguide_id=S000059

To get the term count for the entire Senate, we simply removed the "bioguide_id" parameter. You can find more information about the Capitol Words API in this blog post.

Announcing the Return of "Capitol Words"

The logo for the Sunlight Foundation's Capitol Words projectMore than three years ago, we launched a website called Capitol Words that gave an at-a-glance view of what word was most popular in Congress. Today, the Sunlight Foundation is unveiling the completely revamped and rewritten Capitol Words.

To folks who never had a chance to play with our previous version, Capitol Words scrapes the bulk data of the Congressional Record from the Government Printing Office, does some computer magic to clean-up and organize the data, then presents an easy-to-use front-end website where you can quickly search the favorite keywords of legislators, states or dates.

The new version now allows users to search, index and graph up to five-word phrases that give greater context and meaning to the turns-of-phrase zinging across the aisle. Where we once could only track individual terms like 'health' or 'energy,' now we can break down the issue further into 'health care reform,' 'renewable energy,' 'high energy prices' or however you wish.

The new advanced comparison chart pits two terms against each other in a contest of partisanship or popularity. The simple chart plots the contest winner and visualizes the debate with an embed code as easy to use as a YouTube video. A prime example is the chart generated for the recent health care reform debate and rise of the term ‘Obamacare’:

Capitol Words now pulls in every word and legislator in the Congressional Record going back more than 15 years to January 1996, when Congress first began a digital record of proceedings. For developers who are excited about this comprehensive database, read the details of the API offerings here.

The additional features we've added developed from the strong foundation of the old Capitol Words that bore ongoing fruit in the form of news stories, material for visualizations or just humorous insights. The Washington Post used Capitol Words to looks up favorite words of notable lawmakers from budget hawks to zombies. Reuters used Capitol Words to look back on the year and find the hottest topics and Gawker even indexed craziness using our word counts. CongressSpeaks.com took the Capitol Words API and made a fun animated site matching up politicians. Back at the Sunlight offices, we eagerly played with the data to make a colorful reflection on the year, a mashup of party leaders and an analysis of the effectiveness of a strategist's memo by looking at the use of suggested terms. Capitol Words digs up the data for new stories about Congress every day and the latest version provides an expanded level of detail and history.

Please lose yourself in the sea of Washington babble and let us know what you find in the deep.

Charlie Rangel Loves the Caribbean

The House Ethics Committee admonished Rep. Charles Rangel for trips he took in 2007 and 2008 to a business-funded event in the Caribbean. Last year, I wrote an article examining the curious case of the word "Caribbean" being the most used word in the Congressional Record for an entire day. It turns out that it was Rangel who was using the word and his word choice is actually connected to those trips he took to the Caribbean that led to an ethics investigation. Here's the full article from last April reposted:

According to Carl Malamud, Sunlight is “truly styling” due to our appearance in the Reliable Source in an article about Capitol Words and the top words used by a smattering of lawmakers. I thought I’d provide a little, friendly correction to the gossip mavens at the Washington Post regarding the use (overuse) of the word “Caribbean” by Rep. Charles Rangel — something that piqued my interest a while back.The Reliable Source notes correctly that the word most often released from Rangel’s mouth over the past year was “Caribbean.” However, they claim this is due to his being under investigation for failure to pay taxes on a Dominican villa. This isn’t correct, but the reality does have a connection to Rangel’s troubles.

Now we need to first note that the word use is according to the Congressional Record, which I think we’ve mentioned before includes a whole bunch of words that were never actually spoken on the floor of either chamber of Congress. (You can even fabricate an entire conversation as Sam Brownback and Lindsey Graham once did.) Instead of speaking words, congressmen can insert them into the Record during debate or in the Extension of Remarks. Rangel’s use of the word falls into this latter category and mostly due to his insertion of articles penned for the New York CaribNews (he uses a variety of different spellings for this news outlet).

During the 110th Congress, Rangel inserted articles by the New York CaribNews 45 times. The word “Caribbean,” inserted by Rangel, appears on a total of 77 separate insertions into the Exetensions of Remarks.

The New York CaribNews is a heavily circulated paper in New York City, providing news to the very large Caribbean community in the city. Rangel’s Harlem district also hosts a large number of people of Caribbean descent and recent immigrants.

So what does this mean? Where is the connection to anything related to Rangel’s ethical troubles? The New York CaribNews is owned by the New York Carib News Foundation, which came under fire for hosting a business getaway for members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Rangel, that may have violated congressional ethics rules. According to the New York Post and The Hill, private companies provided the money to the New York Carib News Foundation to spend directly on the travel of the lawmakers. This would be in violation of House ethics rules preventing private companies from providing lawmakers with in kind contributions.

I’m not sure what this says about anything. Is Rangel using the Extension of Remarks to curry favor with the Carib News Foundation? Does this constant reference in the official Congressional Record help with their corporate sponsorships? Perhaps readers have other questions — or answers.

A Little Fun With Capitol Words: "Who Dat?"

Who dat say dey gonna beat dem Saints??? With the New Orleans Saints in the Super Bowl I was curoius as to how often their congressional representatives use the famous Saints "Who Dat" chant in the Congressional Record. A couple of times over the years. (I searched the word "dat".) I expect that number to increase over the coming weeks.

And here's an example from Rep. Joseph Cao of New Orleans via LOUISdb.

This Week in Transparency - July 17, 2009

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

Jeff Jacoby, columnist for The Boston Globe, mentioned ReadTheBill.org in a piece he wrote calling on congressional lawmakers read legislation before they vote on it. Glenn Reynolds, at his Instapundit blog, linked to Jacoby's column. Andrew Sullivan's blog, The Daily Dish, followed by linking to Reynolds.

In Washington Monthly's July/August edition, Charles Homans wrote about the Obama administration's "experiments with data-driven democracy." The article centers on the work of Vivek Kundra, the White House's chief information officer, and mentions both the District of Columbia's Apps for Democracy contest and Sunlight's Apps for America contest. Homans quotes Clay Johnson, Sunlight Labs' director, saying Kundra has his work cut out for him. "I have nothing but respect for what he’s trying to do. But it’s a hard job, and it’s going to take some time for this to actually happen right. I mean years." While discussing Kundra's launch of Data.gov, Homans again quotes Clay, "The top data source is on the world’s copper smelters, which isn’t going to tell us very much about what’s going on inside of our government."

As Ellen Miller, Sunlight's director, wrote earlier this week, "When it comes to following the money that’s flowing to power on Capitol Hill, no one does it better than the Center for Responsive Politics." For instance, MAPLight.org used CRP data to show how money watered down the energy bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (HR 2454). With Congress debating health care reform, Forbes used CRP data to show how America's Health Insurance Plans, the political advocacy and trade group for the health insurance industry, has spent nearly $10 million on lobbying Congress in the past two years. Robert J. S. Ross, writing at The Huffington Post, quotes CRP about how the insurance industry has contributed $568 million to political campaigns since 1998. CNN's Jonathan Mann used CRP data in noting how doctors have spent roughly two-thirds of a billion dollars lobbying lawmakers in the last 10 years.

Sunlight's launch of the National Data Catalog generated a number of good media mentions. Federal News Radio's Dorothy Ramienski interviewed Clay about the launch, who said the impetus for the new site is that Data.gov can't go as far as some would like because of laws that are already in place, such as the Paperwork Reduction Act. "For instance, right now Data.gov only has information around the executive branch of government. It doesn't have any information around the judicial or the legislative branch of government and we don't have any indication as to whether or not it can." Marshall Kirkpatrick at ReadWriteWeb asked, "Can Sunlight build a one-stop-shopping destination for public data, and will people make use of that? Time will tell, but it sounds like a very important project." And Next.gov's Aliya Sternstein referred to the catalog as "a public-service Web site that pulls and repackages federal data - fulfilling the aim of the White House's 'democratizing data' campaign."

National Public Radio's Dina Temple-Raston, in a piece that aired on the network's "Morning Edition," reported how analysts at the FBI and CIA are turning to software to help find patterns among terrorists — hoping to spot clues in everything from phone calls to credit card and ATM usage. She interviewed Jim Dempsey, the director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, "There had been, over the past seven years, this sense that if you collect more and more data and put it into a powerful enough computer, shake it and bake it the right way you'll come up with the unknowns" — terrorists who aren't yet on law enforcement's radar screens, Jim said. "I think, and other people who are more technically adept than I think, that's really a fool's errand."

John Moore at Federal Computer Week wrote how Web 3.0 could help make President Obama’s dream of government transparency a reality, but he’ll need a second term to see it happen. "The Web’s traditional function is to simply present content, such as a government report posted online. The Semantic Web goes a step further by seeking to illuminate the content’s meaning," Moore wrote. While discussing the challenges, Moore lists the time and effort required to tag and describe the government’s vast data holdings. He quotes Clay expressing concern that the government might become preoccupied with formatting data rather than releasing it. “I would hate to see them get bogged down in trying to make their data Semantic Web compatible before it even sees the light of day,” Clay said. Gary Bass, director of OMB Watch, said his group would like to look at government contractors to see if they comply with Occupational Health and Safety Administration, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other agency directives. But the group would need to know that a company listed in one database is the same entity listed in others. “Semantic technology, if done properly, should be able to tell us that,” Gary said.

Veteran reporter J. Scott Orr, writing at Parade magazine, reports on how federal contracts often waste taxpayer money for lack of proper oversight. He cites an investigation (PDF) by the Government Accountability Office that found required performance assessments were conducted for less than one-third of the 23,000 contracts it surveyed. Orr quotes Scott Amey, general counsel to the Project on Government Oversight, saying the feds would save billions of dollars if they would more efficiently collect and share performance data. “Considering Uncle Sam spent over $530 billion last year,” Amey says, “a higher priority must be placed on choosing contractors that are a wise investment.”

U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy (La.) wrote a column in The Huffington Post calling for more earmark disclosure in Congress. He wrote how he and Rep. Jackie Speier (Calif.) worked with Taxpayers for Common Sense and Sunlight to introduce House Resolution 440, which would strengthen transparency and accountability in the earmarking process.

Think Progress' Matt Corley wrote about a memo GOP message guru Frank Luntz wrote defining the Republican rhetoric on health care reform. Corley quotes from and links to Sunlight senior writer Paul Blumenthal's blog post where he used Capitol Words to show how congressional Republicans are following Luntz's advice. At his Liberaland blog, Alan Colmes, the liberal commentator, syndicated radio talk show host and Fox News Channel political contributor, also linked to Paul's post and republished the infographic that used Capitol Words data to show the impact of the memo.

Health Care Word Soup: Luntz Memo

Back in May, in anticipation of the coming health care debate, Republican pollster, strategist and word smith Frank Luntz penned a memo (PDF) detailing key words and language to use to oppose the Democrats health care reform efforts. The memo stressed words like "rationing," "doctor-patient," "government takeover" and "bureaucrats." After putting these words through the Capitol Words search engine, it's pretty clear that Republicans are listening to Luntz' advice.

Over the past month, as the health care debate has really gotten off the ground, the use of these words in the Congressional Record has skyrocketed. See the numbers below:

"Rationing" goes from 18 uses in May to 90 uses in June. This marks the highest level of use for the word "rationing" in the Capitol Words database.

"Doctor-patient" goes from 6 uses in May to 20 in June. This marks the highest level of use for the word "doctor-patient" in the Capitol Words database.

"Takeover" goes from 13 uses in May to 106 in June. This marks the highest level of use for the word "takeover" in the Capitol Words database.

"Bureaucrats" goes from 53 uses in May to 78 uses in June. This marks the highest level of use for the word "bureaucrats" in the Capitol Words database.

All of these four terms are at their respective highest use points from 2001-2009. It can't be a coincidence that these words rise after the release of the Luntz memo. And if you look at the partisan breakdown of word use in the Congressional Record you'll find that these words are used almost exclusively by Republicans.

The word "rationing" is exemplary of this partisan split. The only Democrats to use the word are Sens. Dick Durbin and Patty Murray. However, Durbin uses the word in a speech denouncing the Luntz memo and Murray uses it in denouncing the use of the word. All other uses come from a variety of Republicans in both the House and the Senate.

"Doctor-patient" has a similar split with only three Democrats using the word. All other uses come from Republicans, largley from the Senate and more specifically the Senate Republican leadership.

The use of "takeover" is equally split along partisan lines. The Democrats using the word, Sens. Sherrod Brown, Byron Dorgan, and Murray, all use the word to criticize the use of it by Republicans with Sen. Murray explicitly criticizing the Luntz memo. The preponderance of use for "takeover," like the other words, comes from Republicans.

"Bureaucrats" falls along the same lines as the other three words. Democrats using the word, which is rare, use it to do one of two things: attack the use of it (Sen. Jeff Merkley directly attacks the Luntz memo) or use it in reference to bureaucrats in the health insurance industry. Republicans dominate this word, as they do the other three Luntz memo words.

In some cases, all of these words come together in one sentence, highlighting the strategy recommended by Luntz in his memo. These are two of the best examples (with my own highlighting):

Rep. Virginia Foxx: "While Democrats support raising taxes and rationing care, Republicans support health care reform that controls spending and that ensures patients and doctors make health care decisions, not a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington."

Rep. John Boehner: "The forthcoming plan from Democratic leaders will make health care more expensive, limit treatments, ration care, and put bureaucrats in charge of medical decisions rather than patients and doctors. That amounts to a government takeover of health care, and it will hurt, rather than help, middle-class families across our country."

Winning the battle over health care reform requires framing the debate by using key words to influence public opinion. Luntz' memo provides a view into how Republicans believe they can succeed at opposing reform efforts. Capitol Words helps us see the influence of that memo on the actual language of Republicans.

Capitol Words: Pelosi v. Boehner

An analysis using Capitol Words comparing the words spoken by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Republican Minority Leader John Boehner in 2008 shows that the two issues receiving the most discussion by both parties in the 110th Congress were the debate over climate change legislation and off-shore drilling and the debate over the collapse of the financial sector and the ensuing recession.

Of the top fifty words spoken by both party leaders, there is overlap for only eighteen words. These eighteen words include five of the top thirty words spoken during the entire 110th Congress: Energy, Security, Country, Tax, and Oil. All of these words featured prominently in the debate over energy legislation during the summer months in 2008. Other words that overlapped include Economy, Budget, Jobs, Million and Billion, all words spoken during the September-October debate over the federal bailout of the financial services industry.

Also important are the many words that do not overlap. These show the Speaker's support for the Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and the preview of congressional Republicans 2009 complaints about deficits and spending. The natural oppositional nature of being in the minority is also evident in the kinds of words used by Leader Boehner.

Speaker Pelosi used many words that imitated the language of Barack Obama: Future, Hope, and Leadership. These were staples of the Democratic presidential candidate's campaign. Leader Boehner was, at the same time, showing the combative nature of being in the minority, particularly during a difficult election year. Boehner's words included Democrat, Washington, and Ethics. These are clearly words used to attack the majority. Speaker Pelosi did not use the word Republican in her top fifty words.

The Republican Leader was also focused on traditional Republican policies of low spending with the words Spending, Prices, Cost and Growth. This definitely previewed the lines of argument coming from the minority in the current Congress.

One other interesting tidbit is the use of words that seem to stress similar ideas but from different angles. For example, Speaker Pelosi uses the word Opportunity while Leader Boehner uses the word Unemployment.

These infographics were created by Kerry Mitchell using data from the CapitolWords.org API and were visualized in Nodebox http://nodebox.net using the "graph" library.

Tell me what you see here in the comments.

Earmark My Words

What do top earmarkers talk about in Congress? Does our money go where their mouths are?

In the case of the top ten earmarkers for FY 2008, the top words they used from 2007-2008 (110th Congress) do often align with their duties in either the Appropriations Committee or in bringing home the bacon to their home state. Six of the top ten use appropriations-related language in their top words and three use their state's name in their top words.

The top ten earmarkers for FY 2008 were, in descending order with top word in parentheses, Rep. John Murtha (Billion), Rep. Jerry Lewis (Appropriations), Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young (Defense), Rep. Pete Visclosky (Indiana), Rep. David Obey (Billion), Rep. Norm Dicks (Million), Rep. Marcy Kaptur (Trade), Rep. Harold Rogers (Kentucky), Rep. Ike Skelton (Military), Rep. Chet Edwards (Veterans). Only one of these lawmakers (Rep. Skelton) is not on the House Appropriations Committee.

Three of these lawmakers -- Reps. Lewis, Murtha and Visclosky -- are either under federal investigation or have been mentioned in connection to an investigation in relation to their earmarking practices.

Check out the following word cloud visualization to see what these earmarking lawmakers are talking about. Below the visualization is a list of the Appropriations committee assignment for the nine lawmakers on the committee.

Appropriations Committee Assignments
Rep. John Murtha Chairman, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
Rep. Jerry Lewis Ranking Member, House Appropriations Committee
Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young Ranking Member, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
Rep. Pete Visclosky Chairman, Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee (currently surrendered position); Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
Rep. David Obey Chairman, House Appropriations Committee; Chairman, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee
Rep. Norm Dicks Chairman, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee; Defense Appropriations Subcommittee; Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee
Rep. Marcy Kaptur Defense Appropriations Subcommittee; Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee; Transportation, HUD Appropriations Subcommittee
Rep. Harold Rogers Ranking Member, Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee; Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
Rep. Ike Skelton Not on Appropriations Committee
Rep. Chet Edwards Chairman, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee; Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee
Note: Earmark data comes via Taxpayer.net. Word data comes from CapitolWords.org. Only House lawmakers were used due to less than stellar earmark disclosure by the Senate. And thanks again to Kerry Mitchell for the visuals.

Capitol Words: Pete Visclosky's Home State

Last week, I posted about the relationship between PMA Group fanboy Rep. Pete Visclosky's campaign contributions from clients of the lobbying firm and the earmarks they received from the congressman. One thing I noted was Visclosky's regular use of the word "Indiana" -- his home state -- in the Congressional Record. This is what his word usage looks like over the last ten years:

Do regular earmarkers like Visclosky use their state name more than any other word in the Congressional Record? Do they talk about their district more than any other word? I'll be taking a look and will let you know soon.

(hat tip to @kerryrm and Capitol Words for the word cloud)

Capitol Words: Socialism

What's that word, you know, from the 1980s, that you've been hearing congressmen say all the time? It refers to some ideological position... Anarcho-syndicalism? Antidisestablishmentarianism? Suburban postmoderism? Oh wait, socialism! That's right, socialism, the word, is back in use on the floor of Congress. Let's take a spin through the Congressional Record -- via Capitol Words and THOMAS -- to see how the use of the word socialism has changed in Congress over time.

picture-21

Currently, the word socialism is finding use as a way to deride any piece of the agenda of the majority Democrats. Health care reform. Socialism! Energy reform. Socialism! Bailouts. Socialism! Democrats. Democrat Socialists! Whether you agree with this assessment of these policies, it is clear that this has become the standard line of attack for opponents of President Obama when vituperative attacks are pursued.

While Capitol Words can take us back to 2001, the real interesting information comes if we look even further back. One measure of use that can be judged only through THOMAS, the Library of Congress' congressional research engine, is the number of pages that the word shows up on, rather than the number for actual word use. Currently, for the 111th Congress (2009-2010), there are 80 pages where the word socialism is used. The chart to the left shows how many pages contain the word socialism for the past eleven Congresses.

Congressional Record Pages Referencing Socialism
111th Congress 80 (so far)
110th Congress 66
109th Congress 41
108th Congress 47
107th Congress 53
106th Congress 67
105th Congress 69
104th Congress 96
103rd Congress 117
102nd Congress 190
101st Congress 181
What emerges when looking at the use of the word over these years is the changing nature of its use. Back in 1989 to 1992, the use of socialism as a word almost exclusively refers to socialist, or communist, regimes or movements. The U.S.S.R., Cuba, China, denunciations of socialism in South Africa and Latin America, and so on. The period in question, 1989-1992, is when socialism and communism collapsed across the globe with Glasnost, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the Velvet Revolution.

The ensuing, post-communist period provides a very different use of the word socialism in Congress. While this use showed up every now and again, it became a prominent feature for two important years. The years 1993-1994 were the first two years of President Clinton's term. Clinton was the first Democrat in office in 12 years and his opponents took quick aim at his policies, a new budget and a health care plan, as socialism. While the number of pages that the word appears on in this period is down sharply from the period where communism existed, it is still over 100 pages. In 1994, Republicans swept Congress, taking the House and Senate from the Democrats.

In the years following, after two more years of relatively heavy use of the word socialism (96 pages from 1995-1996), the word use petered out and became less about the socialism of the Democratic Party and more about Cuba, Venezuala, and other socialist movements in Africa or Latin America.

But now, much like in the first two years of Clinton's presidency, socialism is a hot word slipping off the lips of congressmen at an unprecedented pace. (Not sure about the early 20th century and late 19th century Congresses when there were actually real socialists here in the States with increasing political power.) Clearly, the use of the word socialism is both a political tactic to increase fears about the platform and policies of an opponent and the real view of those policies among certain segments of the population. The increasing use, and type of use, of the word shows that the word socialism tracks domestic political developments regarding power shifts between the two parties.

« Previous
1 2