In an astonishing move, the Treasury Department is requiring users to agree to "terms of use" before they can access and download TARP Transaction Reports in spreadsheet format. This requirement undermines the rationale for releasing the data, may implicate federal law, and is simply foolish. It also sets a bad precedent.

The TARP Transaction Reports, which contain detailed information on the government's Wall Street bailout, are available in PDF format going back to November 2008. Only now are they being published online in a much more useful spreadsheet format, known as XLSX, thanks to President Obama's Open Government Directive. The Report accompanying the Directive lauds the release of these weekly transaction reports as "improving transparency of federal bank supervisory activities as well as the investment activities of financial institutions."

The "terms of use" that accompany the TARP reports, reproduced in full at the bottom, require users to:

• Affirm that they have read and understood the site's privacy policy and disclaimers,
• Acknowledge that the terms of use may be modified at any time, which the user agrees to accept,
• Clearly cite Financialstability.gov on all reuses of data accessed or retrieved from Financialstability.gov,
• Clearly state that neither Financialstability.gov nor the U.S. Government vouches for the data or analyses derived from the data after it has been retrieved from the website.

Users who refuse to click "accept" are not permitted to download the data.

Rationale for releasing the data

The rationale for releasing the data, according to the Open Government Directive, is to "break down barriers to transparency, participation, and collaboration between the federal government and the people it is to serve." The availability of the data thus far -- in PDF format only -- has facilitated clever efforts, like those undertaken by SubsidyScope*, to investigate and analyze how TARP money is being used.

Making the information available in a spreadsheet, and not just a PDF, would likely save SubsidyScope hours of data entry, and open up the data to many others who don't have similar resources to transform the data into a usable format. However, the government's imposition of these terms of use puts a stumbling block in front of those efforts. If the government can modify the terms of use at any time, they can control how the information can be used. Forcing people to extract data from the PDFs, for most people, effectively makes the data unaccessible. This is antithetical to transparency, participation, and collaboration.

Federal law and government data

I am far from an expert on intellectual property law, but there seems to be a fundamental contradiction here that arises from the intersection of the Open Government Directive, copyright law, and the terms of use.

Federal law prohibits the government from copyrighting "any work of the United States Government." It is the copyright that gives the owner of information the right to control how a work is published, distributed, and adapted. The government's terms of use acknowledges that no copyright can be claimed.

Nevertheless, the government asserts that it has the right to control how the data is used, with terms changeable at its whim. It does so by creating a contract of adhesion: the user has no opportunity to negotiate over the terms of the contract. Essentially, the government has created an "end user license agreement" more typically used by software companies.

I do not know if this is legally permissible. The data is in the public domain; can the government retain control? This raises serious questions, and goes against the spirit behind both the Open Government Directive and copyright law's government information exception.

Also, there are questions of enforceability. For example, suppose user Adam downloads the file and posts it to his website. User Bob then copies the file off of Adam's website and transforms it. Is Bob bound by the government's restrictions on Adam? Under the current terms, Adam should require Bob to cite Financialstability.gov, but that's about it. This is silly, and creates unnecessary confusion.

This restriction on data use is foolish

As noted above, tefore the government made available TARP information in spreadsheet format, it did so in PDF. The PDFs are not subject to terms of use restrictions. The spreadsheets and the PDFs contain the same data, just encapsulated in different formats. Clever folks, like those at SubsidyScope, merely enter the data from the PDFs into their own database. This is not a trivial effort: it takes takes much, much longer to make the data usable, but the consequences are the same. Why should the government treat the same information, just made available in different ways, differently?

My best guess is that the government may be authenticating the PDF files, but not the spreadsheets. The authentication would allow users to know the "provenance" of the information, in a similar fashion to how art dealers verify the authenticity of paintings.

If this is the reason behind the restrictions, it is unnecessary. The government could authenticate the spreadsheet data, just like the PDFs, obviating the need for the terms of service. Or, if it chooses not to authenticate the data in spreadsheet format, a simple warning or note to the user would be sufficient. The restrictions on the use of the data go far beyond that necessary for authentication.

Additionally, requiring users to agree to terms of use that they must click through each time impedes the automated gathering of this information. The whole point of putting TARP information online in database format is to make it easier to share, but the user agreements thwart this.

Setting a precedent

In the coming weeks and months, the government will likely make available a tremendous amount of data to the public in formats that encourage the use, analysis, and transformation of the underlying data. This term of use agreement is unwise from a policy perspective, but hundreds of term of use agreements would be a disaster for open government. The administration should set consistent policies that address the questions of authentication, the needs of the agencies to avoid liability for disclosures (if any liability exists), and most importantly ensures the broadest possible public access to the information. And it should do so in consultation with the public.

Terms of Use December 9, 2009

This terms of use agreement (the "Agreement") governs your use of the data (the "Data") available through this FinancialStability.gov Web site (the "Site"). You acknowledge that you have read and understood the Site's Privacy Policy, available at http://www.financialstability.gov/about/privacypolicy.htm, including without limitation the Disclaimer of Endorsement, the Disclaimer of Liability, and Official Seal, Names and Symbols. In addition, you acknowledge that once the Data has been downloaded from the Site, the United States Government (including the Department of the Treasury) cannot vouch for its quality and timeliness, and the United States Government cannot vouch for any analyses conducted with the Data retrieved from the Site.

The Site may modify this Agreement from time to time, and your continued use of the Data and/or the Site constitutes your acceptance of any and all modifications.

No copyright may be claimed for any work on this Site that was created or maintained by any Federal employee in the course of their duties. Images and text appearing on the Site may be freely copied, however, with respect to the Data you agree:

1. To cite the date that Data was accessed or retrieved from FinancialStability.gov; and

2. To clearly state that "FinancialStability.gov and the United States Government (including the Department of the Treasury) cannot vouch for the data or analyses derived from this data after the data has been retrieved from FinancialStability.gov".

This Agreement and the Data available through this Site is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, by a party against the United States Government, its Departments, Agencies, or other entities, its officers, employees, or agents. Nothing in this Agreement alters, or impedes the ability to carry out, the authorities of the United States Government, its Departments, Agencies, or other entities, its officers, employees, or agents to perform their responsibilities under law and consistent with applicable legal authorities, appropriations, and presidential guidance, nor does this Agreement limit the protection afforded any information by other provisions of law.

By clicking on the "I Accept" button below, I acknowledge that I have read, understand, and agree to the above conditions.

* SubsidyScope is an initiative of The Pew Charitable Trusts' Economic Policy Group, in conjunction with the Sunlight Foundation, its research and technology partner.

The Congressional Research Service just released a report entitled "Lobbying and the Executive Branch: Current Practices and Options for Change." It reaches an unsupported conclusion about the effect of the administration's lobbying disclosure rules, and also contains several factual and analytical errors. Ultimately, the Administration needs to do more to disclose lobbying contacts online, in real time, in one place, and in machine readable formats.

Changing the "relationship"?

The big story is CRS's conclusion that the "[c]reation of restrictions on federally registered lobbyists' access to executive branch departments and agencies has already changed the relationship between lobbyists and covered executive officials." (emphais added) However, the report does not explain the sense in which the term "relationship" is used, or whether these rules have changed the effectiveness of lobbying efforts and opened up the policy-making process to the public.

Unsurprisingly, Obama Ethics Advisor Norm Eisen hailed the report's findings on the White House blog, writing:

We’re pleased that CRS recognized a fact that is apparent everyday to those of us who work in government: The president’s historic restrictions on lobbying are having a significant impact in making sure that the government serves the public interest and not special interests.

Mr. Eisen and CRS may be right that these new rules have rebalanced the role that lobbyists play in Washington. Indeed, the administration notes its efforts with regard to disclosing and limiting lobbying on the Main street and Wall street bailouts, its request that lobbyists not serve on advisory boards, and imposing new ethical requirements. However, we don't have enough information to reach the conclusion that these rules have had a significant impact. There's a lot more that should be done.

Errors in the CRS Report

The report erroneously states (p. 4) that the EESA (a.k.a. TARP or the Wall Street bailout) lobbying rules came into effect in January, when the rules were not issued until September. Although the Treasury Department issued a press release on January 27, 2009, stating that it would issue these rules, an August Investigator General report criticized Treasury for not promulgated the rules, which were published online in September. (Indeed, Mr. Eisen's blogpost says September 10th is the date). Thus far, only four lobbying contacts have been disclosed, with the earliest reported contact being in September. Treasury deserves little credit for its late and lackadaisical approach to disclosing TARP lobbying contacts.

The CRS report also erroneously states (p. 5) that the TARP lobbying rules and the updated stimulus lobbying rules "mirror" one another, and gives the TARP rules only cursory attention. They are, in fact, very different. For example:

• The stimulus lobbying rules prohibit communications with all persons (with only a few exceptions) during the decisional period, but the TARP lobbying rules apply only to registered lobbyists.

• The stimulus lobbying rules allow Members of Congress to lobby executive branch officials for funds for specific projects during the decisional period, but the TARP lobbying rules prohibit such communications.

Much more about the TARP and stimulus lobbying rules is available here.

Centralized Database of Recovery Act Lobbying Contacts

The CRS report accurately notes (p. 13, fn 65) that "a central database of registered-lobbyist contacts with executive branch officials does not currently exist." Over the past months, many people have called upon the administration to implement an online searchable lobbying database of all disclosures required under the rules, which is updated in real-time. The public database should be searchable by date, communicant, subject matter of the conversation, and so on. The burden of collecting that data could be reduced by allowing staff to submit reports online. Here's  one way it could look.

CRS Reports Generally

This CRS report has been widely reported in the news and has been acclaimed as providing support for the administration's policies, and yet it was not released by CRS. Indeed, CRS never publicly releases its reports, although most of them eventually find their way to the free archive OpenCRS or are available from fee-based services. (Mr. Eisen's blogpost links to the CRS report on OpenCRS). The Sunlight Foundation has repeatedly called for CRS Reports to be made publicly available, and legislation is pending in the House and Senate to do just that. This is just another illustration of why CRS reports should be publicly available.

(H/T to Electionlawblog for noting the report in the first place.)

Full disclosure: in a previous life, I was a legislative attorney with CRS.

Yesterday, I called the Treasury Department in one last ditch effort to find their TARP Lobbyist Contact Disclosure Forms. I did so as final due diligence before publishing this blogpost, earlier today, in which I evaluated the TARP lobbying disclosure rules. In it, I noted that the required disclosure forms were eerily absent from Treasury's website.

This afternoon -- voila! -- 2 disclosure forms appeared. One form is dated 10/9/2009, and the other is dated 9/22/2009. Now, Treasury is required to publish these forms within 3 days of the lobbying contact, so we know that both of these forms were published outside of the 3 day window required by Treasury's own rules. (At a minimum, they weren't published here.)

What is also interesting is that there are only two lobbying contacts reported. This leads to a couple of possible implications: (1) Treasury has more forms to publish, perhaps some of which are late; or (2) Treasury has no more forms to publish right now. For the latter to be true, either no one has talked to Treasury about spending TARP funds over the last month, or the lobbying disclosure rules don't have a lot of bite and missed capturing lobbying communications.

It will be interesting to see what appears on their website in the upcoming days and weeks. I am still waiting for that phone call back from Treasury about my question: where are the rest of the lobbying contact disclosure forms?

In September, the Treasury Department released its TARP lobbying disclosure rules, nearly eight months after a press release heralding their creation, and a month after an Inspector General report bluntly urged Treasury to promulgate the rules. The rules require that the Treasury Department document communications through which companies lobby for TARP funds. Commonsense rules that increase transparency regarding lobbying communications can have the beneficial effect of reducing the likelihood and appearance of corruption, fostering better dialog, and enhancing the public's faith in the political process.

The rules promulgated by the Treasury Department attempt to meet the great challenge of improved transparency, but fall short of their potential. They are hard to understand, difficult to apply, and full of contradictions and omissions that undermine stated policy objectives. The rules should be clarified, rewritten, simplified, and broadened.

My initial review of the rules identified some key differences between the TARP lobbying rules and the stimulus lobbying rules, which were issued over the summer and document lobbying over recovery dollars. In the following sections, I analyze the TARP lobbying rules in considerable detail. Before doing so, here are two measures the Treasury Department should consider.

First, Treasury should implement an online searchable lobbying database of all disclosures required under the rules, which is updated in real-time. The public database should be searchable by date, communicant, subject matter of the conversation, and so on. The burden of collecting that data could be reduced by allowing staff to submit reports online.

Regardless of whether this database is built, all of the documents that the lobbying rules require be disclosed should be available in an easy-to-find place online. So far, I have been unable to find the lobbying communication reports on Treasury's website. The rules require that those reports be made available online within 3 days of a disclosable communication taking place. A phone call to Treasury seeking assistance with finding the disclosures has not yet been returned.

Second, Treasury (and the administration generally) should reconsider the format it uses to promulgate rules. Short, terse, lawyerly language, such as that contained in the TARP lobbying rules memo, is difficult for most people to follow. Treasury should use straightforward language, and define all key terms. Moreover, linguistic sign posts, such as improved headings and sub-headings, would provide a welcome roadmap. Furthermore, adding charts and decision trees to help explain the rules would provide a welcome complement to dense prose.

Overview of TARP Lobbying Rules

TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, was created by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to stabilize the financial markets via a Wall Street bailout. The TARP lobbying disclosure rules seek to “limit the influence of lobbyists and special interest[s]” regarding how the $700+ billion in TARP money is awarded, and “ensure that [government] investment decisions are guided by objective assessments” in promoting the “health and stability of the financial system.”

The lobbying rules apply only to communications with Treasury officials regarding TARP funds. In doing so, they break down communications into two categories, oral and written, and impose different transparency requirements on each.

Presumably, oral and written communications are regulated differently because of the varying ease and comprehensiveness with which federal employees can report the contents of communications. As to oral communications, it is impractical (and probably unwise) for federal employees to transcribe or tape record conversations and place them online. Thus, the rules require that certain oral communications be reduced into written form, with a summary of the communication placed online. This reductive process raises the spectre of improper communications uncaptured by a written report, and likely led to the administration's ban on certain oral communications. By contrast, written communications (i.e., documents) submitted for consideration by Treasury officials can be readily published online in their entirety. As a result, there is less concern about incompletely recorded communications, as all of the information is available for public inspection.

The TARP lobbying disclosure rules can have one of three effects on lobbying communications. They can permit a communication to occur without restriction, prohibit a communication, or allow a communication to occur but impose public reporting requirements.

Unrestricted TARP-related Communications

Any person may ask a Treasury official a logistical question regarding TARP funding or implementation without hindrance. Oral and written communications are allowed, and do not trigger rules requiring Treasury employees to report the communication. Logistical questions include inquires concerning (1) the application process for TARP funding, (2) deadlines for making funding requests, (3) to whom an application should be submitted, and (4) Treasury practices or program requirements.

In addition, the lobbying rules do not impose limitations on oral communications with Treasury officials at “widely attended gatherings,” which is precisely defined in the Code of Federal Regulations. The reasoning behind this rule, presumably, is that airing the communication in public gives those persons holding contrary points of view the opportunity to respond, and also reduces the likelihood of improper influence exerted through the communication.

Bans on TARP-related Communication

At the opposite end of the spectrum, the TARP lobbying disclosure rules ban oral communications regarding specific applications for funds in certain circumstances. It is likely they do so because it is difficult to fully capture and report the contents of oral communications. Specifically, the absence of transparency raises questions about the integrity of agency deliberations.

The rules break down the process of awarding TARP funds into three time periods, summarized in the timeline below. First is the period of time leading up to submission of a “formal application for financial assistance.” Second is the period of time from the submission of a formal application for funds until their “preliminary approval.” Third is the time after granting approval of preliminary funding. It seems to me that there should be a fourth time period demarcated by when the Treasury Department grants “final approval” to the expenditure of funds.

The lobbying rules ban all oral communications between Treasury employees and anyone else (with exceptions discussed shortly) regarding applications for TARP funds during the period between a “formal application” for funds and “preliminary approval” of funding.

What exactly is a “formal application” for assistance, or the granting of “preliminary approval?” The rules don't define those terms. It is also unclear why the ban on oral communications is limited only to the time period between formal application and preliminary approval.

Presumably, an applicant could draft an application for funds with the assistance of a Treasury official, only after which, once the application is “formally” handed in, would the applicant be prohibited from speaking with that official. Moreover, the communications ban would be lifted once the application is preliminarily approved. After preliminary approval, the same applicant could then speak with Treasury officials to advocate for additional funds. Perhaps the ban ends early because an agency may wish to speak with an applicant regarding refining an application. Even if so, as discussed later, there is an exception to the ban that specifically permits conversations initiated by Treasury officials, thus weakening that argument.

Of course, Treasury may have wished to make the oral communications ban as narrow as possible in light of the burdensome nature of such a rule. If so, then requirements to disclose the contents of oral communications, which are discussed in the section on reporting requirements, logically should apply to all other oral communications along these lines. They do not.

Exceptions to the Ban

Before examining the rules regarding reporting communications, we should identify the exceptions to the oral communications ban. As mentioned before, both logistical communications and communications made at widely attended gatherings are not subject to the ban. The TARP lobbying rules carve out two additional exceptions: communications initiated by Treasury officials, and communications between a federal executive agency official and a Treasury employee.

The first exception to the ban, which permits communications between Treasury officials and any person, so long as the communication is initiated by a Treasury official, is relatively straightforward. The FAQ accompanying the lobbying rules provides some context. It explains that Treasury officials may initiate communications to obtain information about pending applications for the purpose of evaluating the applications, among other (unidentified) reasons. It clarifies that agency officials “should not receive, be willing to receive[,] or respond to communications concerning pending applications unless the official affirmatively seeks or requires information about the application.”

The second exception, for communications between a federal executive agency official and a Treasury employee, is also relatively straightforward. The FAQ provides minimal additional insight into the rule, explaining merely that oral communications are permissible at any time. Presumably, the purpose underlying this rule is that members of the executive branch need to be able to speak about pending applications, and their need to do so outweighs any risk of improper influence or inadequate disclosure.

Notable here is that this second exception is narrower than that which exists in the stimulus lobbying rules, which allows communications by federal agency officials. The addition of the word “executive,” as Mike Stern ably explains, cuts Congress out from being able to lobby decisions-makers regarding the awarding of these funds. The White House is not similarly limited.

Overview: Reporting Requirements for TARP-Related Communications

The TARP lobbying rules impose reporting requirements on certain communications. Those rules depend upon whether a communication is oral or written. As a general rule, communications must be reported on the Treasury Department's website within three days. Presumably, those reports will appear at http://financialstability.gov/latest/reportsanddocs.html, although I have not been able to find them to date.

Reporting Requirements for TARP-Related Oral Communications

Although, in the vast majority of instances, oral communications are permitted with Treasury officials regarding TARP funds, those communications will often trigger public reporting requirements. Those requirements vary based upon whether the communication is with a registered federal lobbyist or someone else. This creates a large reporting gap.

Communications with federally registered lobbyists, regardless of whether the communication concerns general policy matters or a specific application for funding, must be summarized and publicly posted on the Treasury Department's website within 3 days. (Note that communications regarding logistical information or that take place at widely attended gatherings need not be summarized and reported.) That summary must include the date of the contact, identify the parties to the conversation, the names of the lobbyist's clients, and a “general, one-sentence description of the subject of the conversation.” In addition, any written materials submitted in connection with the meeting must also be posted online.

By contrast, Treasury officials do not need to report oral communications if the person they are speaking with is not currently a federally registered lobbyist.

Registered lobbyists comprise only a portion of the people who lobby on specific matters. To have to register as a lobbyist, a person must spent at least 20% of his or her total time on “lobbying activities” over a six-month period, and make at least one “lobbying contact.” (See this CRS Report for more details as to who must register as a lobbyist.) Consequently, many persons these rules would seemingly intend to cover, such as corporate CEOs and communications directors, who have substantial but not frequent communications with government officials, are not covered. Smart lobbyists will be able to easily navigate around this disclosure requirement via their colleagues.

Reporting Requirements for TARP-Related Written Communications

Certain written communications must be posted on the Treasury Department's website within 3 business days of the communication. This publication requirement is riddled with qualifications and exceptions that make it hard to understand and fail to capture relevant communications.

The rules recognize three broad categories of communications: general communications, communications regarding policy matters, and communications regarding specific applications for funds. General communications include communications on logistical matters, and are never required to be publicly disclosed. Communications on policy matters and specific applications for money must be disclosed in some circumstances.

Communications on Policy Matters

Only some written communications regarding policy matters must be disclosed. The key factor in determining whether disclosure is required is identifying whether the person making the communication is a lobbyist. When the person is a lobbyist, the communication must be disclosed; otherwise, the communication need not be disclosed.

It is unclear why the rule requires Treasury officials to disclose policy communications with lobbyists, but not the people these lobbyists represent. An easy work-around for those who wish to avoid the disclosure rules would be for the lobbyists to draft communications, but have a CEO, or other person who is not required to register as a lobbyist, send the letter.

Communications Regarding Specific Applications for Funds

Communications regarding specific applications for funds is slightly more tricky to understand, mostly because it creates a third class of people to whom the rules apply. The three groups of people are: federal lobbyists, TARP applicants or their representatives, and all other people.

All written communications by federally registered lobbyists regarding specific applicants for TARP funds must be publicly disclosed. There's a qualifying requirement, namely that the lobbyist must be writing on “behalf” of a client or employer. The word “behalf” is ambiguous, as it be defined “as a representative of or a proxy for” or “in the interest or aid of (someone).” Using the former definition, a lobbyist could be directed to ask for funds for someone other than his employer, and thus the Treasury employee would not be required to report that communication. However, that strikes me as an unreasonable interpretation, as one main purpose of the rules is to limit the (undue) influence of lobbyists and special interests through public disclosure.

It is worth emphasizing that the TARP lobbying disclosure rules have created a new class of people, TARP applicants or their representatives, for the purpose of disclosing certain types of written communications. Some, but not all, written communications from TARP applicants or their representatives regarding specific applications for funds must be disclosed. This category of people is significantly broader than federal lobbyists, and would likely cover the corporate CEOs, communications directors, and many others who have a vested interest in directing how TARP funds are used. It is unclear why this category of communicant was not used to help refine the ban on oral communications or rules requiring disclosure of oral communications. Doing so would have contributed significantly towards closing many of the loopholes identified above.

Regardless, Treasury employees must publicly disclose written communications from TARP applicants or their representatives, but only in limited circumstances. Specifically, written communications must be disclosed only when an application for funds is pending. This likely mirrors the ban on oral communications, which prevents some oral communications while an application is pending. As a result, it seems likely that written communications prior to a “formal application” for funding need not be disclosed. In addition, it is unclear whether applications are still considered “pending” after the agency gives preliminary approval to a funding request, or whether an application ceases being pending once an agency gives it final approval. The text provides no hint as to when the “pending” period ends. The disclosure rule would be more logical were it to apply all the way through final approval, although either interpretation is valid.

Even so, this discussion of “lobbyists” and TARP “applicants or their representatives” leaves out additional people who have an interest in swaying Treasury administrators to disburse funds (or change policy). These financial regulations omit business that are partners with companies that stand to receive government funds, or that are partially controlled by likely beneficiaries, and other persons with financial interests. Moreover, agents of foreign governments, who often lobby on behalf of companies based in their countries and who are registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, are ignored entirely. It is unclear why the rules would skip business partners and others that have pecuniary or political motivations with regard to influencing whether specific applications for funds are granted, or general policy matters that will affect future funding.

What's Next?

After the administration promulgated the stimulus lobbying rules, it reconsidered whether the rules worked as intended. During that rethinking process, the administration met with public interest organizations and others, and ultimately revised the rules. The Treasury Department should engage in a similar public process and reconsider whether its lobbying disclosure rules fully meet the transparency standards articulated by President Obama.

As the Senate moves forward today with the newest version of the bailout bill (now being referred to as the "rescue plan"), Sunlight has been feverishly parsing the text of the new proposal, as provided by the Senate Banking Committee.

We have finished the first part of the bill, Division A, which is now posted for review and commentary on PublicMarkup.org.

If Congress released the data behind the bills they consider, in real time, at the same time as bills are released, then public review and processing would be much MUCH easier. (Details on what that would take are available in this chapter of the Open House Project report.)

It looks like the Senate is moving forward today with a new bailout bill, which is available through the Senate Banking committee site.

A mirrored copy, and an embeddable version are both available below.

We're working on parsing the legislation to get it up on PublicMarkup.org, but until Congress starts publishing bills in XML, parsing it is time consuming. Updates shortly. Update 12:15 PM: Here's the embedded version:

Update, 12:21 PM: Here's a mirrored version of the PDF.

Update 1:05 PM: Also, for additional info, see the one page and section-by-section analysis posted to the Senate Banking Committee site here.

Update 1:52 PM: For the plan for Senate floor consideration, see the Senate Calendar here.

The unexpected failure of the bailout proposal has given lawmakers and citizens a second chance to understand the details of this sweeping legislation.

You can join the Sunlight Foundation in renewing our call for all legislation to have at least 72 hours online before a vote. Without this minimal public exposure, how can lawmakers and their staff really understand legislation? What hope do citizens have of being truly represented if they can only read bills shortly before passage (or failure, as the case may be)?

We have refined our petition in light of this new opportunity for mindful consideration of the bailout legislation. To sign up, tweet to your friends, or read more details, check out our petition, or read our press release.

Congress responds to public pressure, and posting bills before votes is just common sense. Tell Congress to Read the Bill First! Sign our petition, and check out the latest versions of the bill at PublicMarkup.org.

Today, the Sunlight Foundation is calling on Congress to exercise restraint, and give Members and the public sufficient time to read and respond to the proposed bailout legislation.

Citizens, irrespective of party identity, are deeply skeptical at the proposal.  If any legislation should be considered publicly, and carefully, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 should be considered with level heads and in full public view.

We're happy to see Congress recognizing the public's interest in this legislation, posting the text of the agreement as soon as a consensus plan was developed among congressional leadership.  Congress should take the next logical step, and hold off on floor consideration until a full 72 hours has elapsed after posting the bill.

As our just issued press release says:

But, before the bailout proposal is considered by lawmakers, it must undergo an even more important test: evaluation and assessment by Americans. That's why we are calling on citizens to sign a petition to urge Congress to wait 72 hours between when the bill was first posted online and the actual vote. We believe all legislation should posted online for at least three days before a vote to give lawmakers and citizens sufficient time to review and debate it, and this bill is no exception. This isn't a bill to rename a few courthouses; this bill is Congress's biggest intervention in the economy in decades. This important legislation deserves more time for public scrutiny.

Sign the petition here, and tell Congress to read the bill first!