The Center for Public Integrity has an important story today on Organizing for Action's money in politics problem:

Organizing for Action, launched by former Obama campaign officials earlier this year, confirms it will not publicly release donors' employer and occupation data despite collecting it through its online donation form.

Lisa Rosenberg made a similar observation recently, in adding incomplete disclosure to the list of problems with the President's dark money group. To reiterate: OFA allows the President to accept unlimited donations (in the name of grassroots organizing), to build political power for the President, while avoiding the reach of campaign finance laws.

Here is President Obama in 2010 (video, transcript), talking about the DISCLOSE Act:

These shadow groups are already forming and building war chests of tens of millions of dollars to influence the fall elections. Now, imagine the power this will give special interests over politicians.  Corporate lobbyists will be able to tell members of Congress if they don’t vote the right way, they will face an onslaught of negative ads in their next campaign.  And all too often, no one will actually know who’s really behind those ads.

Now it's 2013, Obama has his own "shadow group." We already knew OFA's "voluntary disclosure" was ultimately unreliable. (It's voluntary, and there's a reason campaign finance laws aren't designed to be self-enforcing. On top of that, even if they know the donor's identity, donors are still quite capable of laundering their donations.)

And now we get official confirmation that even though OFA collects important information about donors, and they plan not to release that information publicly.  Why would Obama's group want to know this information, while at the same time keeping it from the public? Why does the President seem to have no plan for OFA's structure, apparently making it up as they go?

The President who was so concerned about the corrupting effects of unlimited contributions is surprisingly unconcerned about the effects of unlimited contributions on himself, and his c4 reflects it. OFA's ability to broker access to the President and tap into large donors is only being held back by the threat of public blowback, and not at all by any Presidential sense of accountability. If OFA's structure were motivated by accountability, we'd see a coherent policy about campaign finance disclosure, empowering public oversight of his group's finances and donors. Instead, we see conflicting messages about what kind of access a $50K donor can expect, and a disclosure policy that exists only in proportion to public outrage about Obama's dark money.

President Obama should be leading the way in creating accountability in our politics. Instead he's leading politics to a place with little accountability.

Less than a week after Organizing for Action chairman and former Obama campaign strategist Jim Messina assured the public that OFA would not guarantee access to the president, we learn that a $50,000 contribution to the group will buy an invitation to a “founders’ summit” tomorrow, where the President will be the featured speaker.

We know that $50,000 will buy a seat at the table, but we don’t know who will be sitting at it. That’s because OFA has committed to disclosing contributors’ names only on a quarterly basis.

OFA’s minimal promises of quarterly disclosures of contributors’ names do not go far enough to rid the group of its dark money patina. Rather than delay disclosure, OFA should make public the names, occupations and employers of every donor within 24 hours of receipt of a contribution of $250 or more. The group should also disclose, in real time, all of its expenditures. Since there are no rules to enforce OFA’s voluntary assurances of accountability, public scrutiny is the only mechanism to ensure OFA is living up to its claims that it is not taking corporate or foreign money, that it is not engaging in electioneering activities and that it is not funneling money to other dark money groups.

Selling access to the president is nothing new. Bill Clinton had the Lincoln Bedroom and George W. Bush had his Rangers and Pioneers. It shouldn’t be condoned regardless of the mechanism, but the former presidents’ money men traded cash for time with the Commander in Chief within the purview of a campaign finance regime with legally enforceable limits on the amount and source of contributions as well as mandatory disclosure of contributions and expenditures. OFA is structured so that no legally enforceable contribution limits or public disclosure requirements apply.

Real time online disclosure of OFA’s contributions and expenditures is in the best interest of both the organization and the president, as it is only through comprehensive and immediate transparency that the public can determine whether OFA is living up to its promise to “rebalance the [special interest] power structure” rather than reinforce it.

Organizing for Action (nee Obama for America), the campaign committee that morphed  into an outside money haven, is trying change its image from a that of dark money group selling access to the president to a squeaky clean issues-centric organization.  But this is a tiger that can’t change its stripes.

After pushback from the reform community, OFA today reversed course, announcing that, “we have now decided not to accept contributions from corporations, federal lobbyists or foreign donors.” This is a far cry from initial reports that not only would OFA take money from corporations, it might do so in exchange for meetings with the President.  It also begs the question:  Was OFA originally planning to take money from foreign donors?  We’ve long argued to an apparently indifferent political class that foreign money could easily be laundered through the dark money system that evolved after the Citizens United decision.  OFA’s announcement is at least tacit acknowledgment that foreign money can easily find its way into our political process.

But with today’s announcement that OFA will limit who it takes money from and that it will disclose donors of $250 or more on a quarterly basis, why aren’t we applauding them for seeing the light?

OFA’s Disclosures are neither Timely nor Complete

As long as OFA is making up the rules as it goes along, there is no reason it shouldn’t meet or surpass the disclosure requirements that apply to political parties. Disclosure delayed is disclosure denied, and the quarterly reporting of donors promised by OFA allows them to hide donors—at least temporarily—in an age when technology could easily facilitate real time online disclosure.  Moreover, OFA is not disclosing details normally associated with political contributions—specifically the address, occupation and employer of the donor that not only help identify the donor but the industry or interests that might be important to him. There is no disclosure of bundlers either—a big donor could deliver a fat wad of checks to OFA from his fat cat friends, and while OFA’s chairman and former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina will know who to thank, the public will remain in the dark.

OFA is a Mechanism for Fat Cat Access

Messina took great pains to address the unseemly specter that OFA is a vehicle to sell access to the president to the highest bidder, stating, “we can't and we won't guarantee access to any government officials.” But while he did not guarantee access, nor did he rule it out.  Quite the contrary.  “Just as the president and administration officials deliver updates on the legislative process to Americans and organizations across the ideological spectrum, there may be occasions when members of Organizing for Action are included in those updates.”  Will the members of OFA who give $50 be included in those updates, or only the members who give $50,000 or $500,000?

There is no Accountability

Under OFA’s “voluntary” system of disclosure, there is no enforcement mechanism to ensure that big money donors will be disclosed, or whether the group is sticking to its commitment to prohibit corporate and foreign contributions. There is nothing to prevent a CEO from writing a big check to OFA, only to be reimbursed from her corporate coffers—laundering a corporate contribution. The only legally enforceable rules that apply to OFA are the same ones that apply to every other dark money 501(c)(4) organization—and we know how well those work.

OFA is the Antithesis of Campaign Finance Reform

In his 2010 State of the Union Address the president vociferously decried special interest money taking over our elections:  “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign companies -- to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

OFA, by design, will “open the floodgates for special interests” to be “bankrolled by American’s most powerful interests,” with only Messina’s word that it will not accept corporate or foreign contributions.  It’s an end run around what remains of the current campaign finance system, giving donors an option to avoid the limits and disclosures that apply to contributions to political parties and PACs.  It is another sad example of the Obama team’s willingness to funnel more money, not less, into our political system.

The Obama administration should be trying to clean up the current campaign finance disaster by making passage of the DISCLOSE Act a priority, by naming an IRS commissioner committed to new rules that would shut off the dark money spigot, and by replacing FEC commissioners with individuals willing to enforce rules that enhance disclosure. Instead of working toward reform, however, his team has created a new tool for moneyed interests to buy access and influence in our political system.

Representative Van Hollen reintroduced the DISCLOSE Act in the House, marking his continued support for legislation that would shine a light on dark money. After the torrent of secret money that infiltrated the 2012 elections, the disclosure bill should be a no brainer. Van Hollen and Democratic sponsors of the House DISCLOSE Act get that, but unfortunately no House Republican is yet willing to concede that the public has the right to know who is paying for their elections.

Over in the Senate, one Republican has acknowledged the need for better disclosure of election related spending by outside groups. Sen. Lisa Murkowski has joined Sen. Ron Wyden in offering a proposal for greater transparency. Given the recalcitrance of Republicans—especially Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell—on this issue, Senator Murkowski must be credited for her willingness to take a stand on making money in politics more transparent. We hope that her leadership will encourage more of her Republican colleagues to follow and that she and Senator Wyden will join forces with Senator Whitehouse—the champion of the DISCLOSE Act in the Senate—in an effort to get a robust disclosure bill through that chamber.

What a year 2012 has been! We faced an onslaught of unprecedented amounts of political spending. In this post-Citizens United landscape, it was even harder to connect the dots and know who was paying for the campaigns and what they'll get in return. Dark money rained down, super PACs sprouted like mushrooms and negativity reigned all while our Congress experienced one of its least productive years, stalling meaningful reforms like the DISCLOSE Act.

But, all was not dark. During 2012, the beginnings of something very positive started to take root as the movement for online open government grew on a significant scale. This year, we launched a major global initiative, collaborating with transparency organizations to define best practices and norms for open government around the world. We joined more than 100 organizations in a Declaration on Parliamentary Openness to improve openness, transparency and citizen participation in the legislative process on an international scale.

To see all what we've accomplished this year, please watch our 2012 year-in-review video and share it with someone you know.

• our popular Politwoops, hailed by TIME magazine as one of the best websites of 2012 for creating a permanent record for tweets deleted by elected officials.
• Ad Hawk, our "Shazam for Political Ads" that earned the very cool rating of “Essential iPhone App of 2012” by Gizmodo.
• Scout, which alerts you on actions that federal regulators, Congress or your state legislature take on a specific bill or issue you care about.

2013 already promises to be an exciting year with new initiatives that will give you more opportunities to join us in shining sunlight on politics and government. If you want to be kept in the loop about these new developments -- and help us continue our nonpartisan research and tech development -- please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to the Sunlight Foundation today.

We won't be able to do it without you, so please stand with us to keep politics and our government transparent and accountable.

Thanks and best wishes for a happy new year!

We have all just witnessed the most expensive election in history--one in which spending by outside groups reached new heights, and the amount the public knows about the sources of that money reached new lows.

Although it would be easy to overstate, it is true that this money doesn't seem to have bought the electoral returns hoped for by many of those supplying it. For those concerned about money's distorting effect on our system, it's inspiring to see that there are limits to how far voters can be pushed by campaign dollars. But it would be a grave mistake to conclude that this means our system is not corrupted in fundamental ways.

Tuesday's general election outcomes were shaped by spending that happened months ago, during the primary process. In part, this week's lopsided results can be seen as proof of a country that wasn't well-served by the choices it had. In many races, virtually unlimited financial support from wealthy individuals made it possible for unusually extreme candidates to win nomination. This meant that the average voter had fewer good matches for her priorities on November 6.

And this money erodes the public's faith in our system. Endless misleading campaign ads breed distrust, disillusionment and distraction. With unlimited money to fuel them, the inexhaustible competitiveness of our politics threatens to alienate the people it's supposed to serve.

But the most important effects of 2012's avalanche of money will come after Election Day. Even if their candidates lost, the influence bought by America's new class of megadonors will remain. Those who won on Tuesday won’t be the only ones running our system: many, if not most, of the losing staffers, consultants and politicians will remain in politics, as will their more successful allies. All of them can be counted on to remember the favors that powerful donors did for them.

How will those debts be repaid? How can we be sure that it won't come at the expense of our system, our country, and those who can't afford to buy influence? The answers are the same as they've always been. Transparency through real-time reporting and measures like the DISCLOSE Act. Vigilance by the public and the press. And an insistence that our representatives be held accountable.

We have just seen that there are practical limits to what money can buy on Election Day. Now it's up to all of us to make sure there are limits to what it can buy on every other day.

flickr photo via Joe Shlabotnik

Frustrated by the inability of Congress to address the Citizens United decision, voters in Montana, Colorado and Massachusetts took the issue on themselves and by overwhelming majorities voiced their opinion that corporations should not have the same free speech rights as individuals.

In Montana, 75% of voters directed the state’s congressional delegation to propose a constitutional amendment overturning the Citizens United decision. In what seems eminently rational, the amendment stated that “the people of Montana regard money as property, not speech.” It went on to say that “there should be a level playing field in campaign spending that allows all individuals, regardless of wealth, to express their views to one another and their government.”

By similar margins, Colorado voters supported a referendum urging the state’s representatives in Congress to support efforts to overturn the Citizens United decision.

Finally, language appeared on the ballot in 170 Massachusetts towns that called on Congress to amend the Constitution to affirm that “corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings,” and “both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending.” Seventy-nine percent of voters who had the chance to weigh in on the ballot initiative supported it.

Although not binding, the initiatives gave voters a chance to express their disagreement with a system that gives corporations a louder political voice than individuals. Voters know that $1 billion in spending by SuperPACs and secretive nonprofits distorts the political process. They know the dangers of dark money include access to elected officials—the kind of access Chevron purchased with its $2.5 million contribution to a the Congressional Leadership Fund, a Super PAC supporting House Republicans. They know that there is a real threat to democracy when elected officials are willing to consider doing the bidding of deep-pocketed corporate donors in order to stave off future dark money attacks.

Although the ballot initiatives supported a constitutional amendment to address Citizens United, there can be no doubt that during the intervening period, voters would strongly favor greater disclosure of dark money through enactment of legislation like the DISCLOSE Act. Getting dark money out of politics is a multistep process. Voters in Montana, Colorado and Massachusetts took the first step.

Later today, the Senate is expected to vote along party lines to deny cloture to the DISCLOSE Act. Republicans have even promised to launch a filibuster to guarantee the bill is defeated. But, several Republican Senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) its most ardent opponent, have spoken in favor of disclosure in the past.

The Sunlight Foundation has put together a video highlighting some of these statements. Keep reading for details and links to the statements included in the video. For more background and analysis on the bill see Lisa Rosenberg's series What You Should Know About the DISCLOSE Act.

We urge you to call your Senators today to tell them to vote YES on DISCLOSE.

President Ronald Reagan

 "Full disclosure of all campaign contributions, including in-kind contributions, and expenditures on behalf of any electoral activities." From the 1988 Legislative and Administrative Message: A Union of Individuals, January 25, 1988.

President George H.W. Bush

"Disclosure -- full disclosure -- that's the answer here." - Remarks to Congressional and Administrative Interns Announcing Campaign Finance Reform Proposals, June 29, 1989.

Senator Olympia Snowe

"Greater disclosure and transparency in the process will act as a strong deterrent against unethical behavior in Congress." Statement in favor of lobbying reform, March 2006.

Senator Susan Collins

“Sen. Collins...believes that it is important that any future campaign finance laws include strong transparency provisions so the American public knows...who is funding ... a political candidate or issue.” Statement from Collins' spokesman, GOP Senators avoid co-sponsoring campaign finance reform legislation, The Hill, March 20, 2010.

Senator Scott Brown

"Attack ads from unaccountable outside groups that spend millions of dollars from anonymous donors portraying their opposition unfairly and misleading voters are wrong." Open letter to Elizabeth Warren challenging her to join his call for outside groups to stay out of the Massachusetts Senate race, The Boston Herald, January 13, 2012.

Senator Dick Lugar

“To make certain that The Club for Growth has not...undermined the public trust, I call upon your organization...to immediately release the names of the individuals and entities contributing." Open letter to the Club For Growth calling on them to release the names of their donors, April 13, 2012.

Mitch McConnell

"We need to have real disclosure...why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?" Campaign Finance Bill has GOP Wary, The Hill, April 22, 2010.

"This is nothing less than an effort by the government itself to exposes (sic) its critics to harassment and intimidation, either by government authorities or through third-party allies." Speech to the American Enterprise Institute, May 15, 2012.

Please share this video to help inform your friends and family about the Republican back-pedaling on disclosure and the urgent need to take action today to convince the Senate to pass DISCLOSE.