Tomorrow is the anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

I became particularly interested in the months after the disaster on the ways that public disclosure support effective government oversight, especially since this situation was caused by both mechanical and regulatory failures.

Disclosure often functions as far more than a supplement to regulatory control; transparency requirements form the backbone of many of our public protections. As I pointed out last June, public disclosure empowers public regulation.

A year on, though, and it looks like the old MMS (now BOEMRE) is still overlooking public disclosure.

I wrote last June about the various reports that make up regulation of offshore drilling -- requirements that drillers must disclose environmental, economic, or ecological impact of their activities. Many of these reports are required to be publicly available, but only if you visit a field office.

If these reports were posted online, where someone might actually look at them, then the reporting would suddenly become far more forceful, relevant, and grow some teeth. BOEMRE's website has sections devoted to their response to last year's disaster, but there's little new information being disclosed from the entities they are supposed to regulate. Memos like this explain newly strengthened requirements to industry actors, but the public seems to have been egregiously left out of BOEMRE's understanding of their regulatory function.

This is actually a case where the President's leadership can help enormously. This January, the White House released a new Presidential Memo on Regulatory Compliance Data. The public reports at the heart of BOEMRE's purpose are exactly the kind of information that the White House is instructing agencies to release better.

The memo says:

Sound regulatory enforcement promotes the welfare of Americans in many ways, by increasing public safety, improving working conditions, and protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink. Consistent regulatory enforcement also levels the playing field among regulated entities, ensuring that those that fail to comply with the law do not have an unfair advantage over their law-abiding competitors. Greater agency disclosure of compliance and enforcement data will provide Americans with information they need to make informed decisions. Such disclosure can lead the Government to hold itself more accountable, encouraging agencies to identify and address enforcement gaps. ... First, agencies with broad regulatory compliance and administrative enforcement responsibilities, within 120 days of this memorandum, to the extent feasible and permitted by law, shall develop plans to make public information concerning their regulatory compliance and enforcement activities accessible, downloadable, and searchable online.

What could fit this description better than the documents that the extractive industry is required to prepare in order to avoid exactly the kind of disaster we watched happen a year ago? They're already available for public inspection, but just not posted online.

The Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources is currently holding a hearing into responses to the Gulf oil spill with Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar testifying. From 2005-2010, the oil and gas industry has contributed over $2.3 million to current members of the committee, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The current leading recipient of oil and gas campaign contributions on the committee is Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., a strong proponent of offshore drilling. Landrieu has received $363,950 from the oil and gas industry over the last five years. In the wake of the Gulf oil spill that is washing ashore in her state, Landrieu firmly backed offshore drilling as key to America's energy future and vital to Louisiana's economy. She has also called for a compromise in raising the liability cap for companies involved in oil spills. The cap is currently set at $75 million.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., is second highest recipient of oil and gas money on the committee with $311,750. Lincoln has been a proponent of offshore drilling for some time, praising President Obama's March decision to expand offshore drilling. Since the Gulf oil spill happened, Lincoln has remained quiet on whether a moratorium should be reenacted and has focused on expressing concern over BP's practices.

The oil spill became an issue in the waning days of the primary campaign between Lincoln and Arkansas Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. The League of Conservation Voters released an advertisement critical of Lincoln for the oil and gas contributions she has received and for her previous votes in favor of oil company tax breaks. Despite the advertising, Lincoln won what many consider a surprise victory over Halter last night.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, is another top recipient on the committee with $225,326. Murkowski, whose state is reliant on the oil and gas industry, has been the biggest defender of the industry in the weeks since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and sunk causing the massive Gulf oil spill. When the Senate sought to pass legislation raising the liability cap on oil companies, Murkowski blocked consideration of the bill to raise the cap from $75 million to $10 billion.

Below are oil and gas contributions to the full committee:

Powerlessness in the face of disaster is dispiriting. Powerlessness in the face of regulatory failure is fixable.

Despite our widespread ability to communicate online; to see, as a society, to the murky bottom of the Gulf in real time, we're still in a suspended state of irrelevance to this slow motion disaster -- transfixed and dazed, as Micah Sifry points out.

Unfortunately, the people formerly known as the audience are fundamentally still functioning as the audience.

This is true, in part, because the current situation is a failure of complex machinery, which is difficult for most of us to constructively relate to. We try, suggesting enormous rubber shower curtains, or pointing out the absorbency of hay. And perhaps the international community of oil rig engineers is collaborating well now -- if so, I hope that story gets told.

Mechanical failure is palatable; regulatory failure is inexcusable.

There is, however, another failure here too, that takes less specialized skill to relate to. That's the regulatory failure that has led to current situation. We have a complex set of regulatory mechanisms set up to keep this from happening, and they have failed, and miserably so. We're only really relating to that regulatory failure only through traditional investigative journalism -- to its credit, but also at all of our peril.

Every day brings a new kick in the stomach, as the New York Times, McClatchy, and many many others illuminate new parts of this failure.

And each time I read one of those stories, I feel the same way -- amazed that it happened, and also amazed that we're only finding out about it now.

For all of the national discussion about offshore drilling, how has no one reviewed the required plans before now to realize their apparent fakeness? How were federal regulators able to let the industry fill out their own inspection forms, to be later traced in pen?

How often are we letting them languish, unread, unexamined, and unchallenged, in the “regional field offices” of our public neglect?

Many of these "public" inspections, in turns out, were only public in a very limited sense, opening the door to neglect and abuse. The same holds for the plans companies need to submit before they drill -- apparently public, but effectively out of reach, and, consequently, filled out thoughtlessly, failing to create accountability. (My initial research into those reports is attached at the the end of this post, and inspired me to write this.)

Many of these public accountability mechanisms rely on outdated techniques despite their central role in our regulatory system. Putting an important report in a regional field office doesn't make it effectively available for public inspection. As we've now seen, it makes them effectively hidden -- waiting in obscurity for weeks for real review, even in the face of the country's largest environmental disaster.

That's the spirit in which we've helped prepare the Public Online Information Act, or POIA, introduced by Rep. Steve Israel in the House -- to require public reporting to be truly public, by forcing their publication online.

While the live view of the gushing oil is valuable, creating some accountability, and having what is probably an important psychological impact, we need a live view of the other mechanisms that failed us here too -- our public protections in the form of regulations. I'm not talking about cameras on the helmets of oil rig inspectors (although the image is appealing at the moment), but about key public reports going online so that they serve their intended purpose.

These reports aren't obscure, or pointless either. They're absolutely central to the way we regulate industry activity, and that's true across regulatory contexts. The SEC, FCC, FEC (etc) regulatory agencies each collect public information, not as a byproduct of their work, but as a central approach to doing their jobs. Read the Federal Election Campaign Act. Or the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (as I did below) -- they're largely accessible even if you don't have a law degree -- and you can see that these public reports were created as the pillars of public regulation. Public reporting empowers public regulation.

How often are we letting them languish, unread, unexamined, and unchallenged, in the "regional field offices" of our public neglect?

The administration, as they piece together the Interior Department and the Minerals Management Service, should use public scrutiny to everyone's advantage, and start posting MMS information online -- if it's public, post it. There is probably much, much more to be examined than the recent news stories indicate.

As they retroactively illuminate our regulatory failure, the daily gut check from our newspapers includes phrases like "according to our review of certain MMS documents." We should, instead, be saying "according to documents submitted yesterday by inspectors," or, "according to a permit to drill submitted earlier this week by , and spotted by , a reporter for the Daily ___".

Mechanical failure is palatable; regulatory failure is inexcusable.

That it takes a national disaster to spur us into effective oversight means we've got a long way to go before the public can effectively hold the government, and by extension, regulated industry, to account.

What follows are my notes as I researched the OCS Lands Act, and the reports it creates ineffective public access to:

Here's a summary of what I found regarding the MMS reports I haven't been able to find online anywhere yet. 1. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCS Lands Act) sets policy regarding leasing and drilling. pdf: http://bit.ly/d1T83m US Code (43 USC 1331 - 1356a) -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode43/usc_sup_01_43_10_29_20_III.html 2. 43 USC 1351 mandates that detailed "Development and Production Plans" (DPPs) be submitted to the Secretary (almost def. the Interior Secretary). I suspect that this detailed report would be immensely valuable to read, especially if one were done of the Deepwater Horizon well. I don't know whether that well would be covered by the OCS Lands Act, or whether it's different, although I suspect it'd be covered. Even if the current spill isn't covered by this requirement, it's likely that it'd be covered by other similar requirements. 3. The same law mandates that these reports are available to the public, after appropriate redaction, and within 10 days of receipt. ("online" isn't mentioned.) Googling for them gets me nowhere. 4. The Regulations promulgated under the OCS Lands Act require that these DPPs be made available to the public at the "MMS Regional Public Information Office", by the Regional Supervisor. 30 CFR 250.204 (PDF: edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2001/julqtr/pdf/30cfr250.204.pdf ) 5. The MMS site says that these required reports will also be called a Development Operations Coordination Document, or DOCD. http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/regs/laws/postsale.html#d+p 6. Googling for DOCDs and DPPs (the two names for the same required report) hasn't been productive. 7. There are numerous other reports on the MMS site that could conceivably be some sort of excerpts of the DOCDs or DPPs, but they appear to be something else. 8. Guidance from MMS on how to prepare and submit those documents: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/regs/ntls/ntl03-g17.html 9. MMS's information page: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/pubinfo/piindex.html (The DPPs don't appear to be here either.)

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is quickly becoming a serious ecological disaster. At the same time, the event has become a political hot potato as the various parties involved attempt to protect themselves from blame. British Petroleum (BP), the owners of the oil lease site where the sunken rig was drilling, is gearing up their lobbying team to present their case to congressional investigators. Thanks to their long-established connections, they may find some in Congress who are willing to listen.

The Center for Responsive Politics ranks BP as one of the top donors to political campaigns over the twenty years having given in excess of $6 million to congressional and presidential campaigns. The ten biggest recipients of BP contributions still in Congress are Rep. Don Young ($73,300), Sen. John McCain ($44,899), Sen. George Voinovich ($41,400), Rep. John Dingell ($31,000), Sen. Mary Landrieu ($28,200), Rep. Joe Barton ($27,350), Sen. Jim Inhofe ($22,300), Sen. Mitch McConnell ($22,000), Rep. John Culberson ($20,950) and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison ($19,500).

BP has focused a good portion of their campaign contributions on the House Committee on Energy & Commerce. The committee is scheduled to begin hearings on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on Wednesday. Since 1989, BP has contributed a total of $195,550 to the current 51 members of the committee. Rep. Barton is the ranking member of the committee. Rep. Dingell is chairman emeritus and was recently deposed as chairman by Rep. Henry Waxman. Other top recipients include Rep. Ralph Hall ($14,500), Rep. Fred Upton ($13,100) and Rep. Roy Blunt ($12,500).

While BP made investments in Congress with their wide reach of contributions, some lawmakers made investments in BP. At least 17 lawmakers reported holding stock in BP in their most recent personal financial disclosure filings. Rep. James Sensenbrenner holds the largest amount of stock in BP with a value between $100,001 and $250,000. One member of the Energy & Commerce Committee, Rep. Upton, also holds stock in BP valued between $16,002 and $65,000.

The lobbying team assembled by BP also provides the company with reach into both Congress and executive branch. Twenty-five of the thirty-seven lobbyists listed in 2010 first quarter lobbying disclosures as being hired by BP have previous government experience. This includes two former top aides to Sen. Landrieu, a former aide to the Energy & Commerce Committee, former congressman Jim Turner and 15 others with congressional experience.

The former Energy & Commerce Committee staffer, Courtney Johnson, was listed as the host for two fundraisers over last year, according to the Party Time database. One was for Rep. Dingell, the former Energy & Commerce chairman. The other was for the political action committee of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a lawmaker close to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Prolific Democratic fundraiser Tony Podesta is listed as a lobbyist for BP. Podesta is listed as hosting eighteen fundraisers since the beginning of the 111th Congress.

Other congressman who have had held fundraisers hosted by lobbyists hired by BP since the beginning of 2009 include Rep. Walt Minnick, Sen. Jim Inhofe, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (twice), Rep. Barbara Lee, Sen. John Thune, Rep. Kay Granger, Sen. Richard Burr, Rep. Glenn Nye (twice) and Rep. Dennis Moore.