President Obama has reportedly loosened fundraising restrictions, allowing huge corporate donations to support his 2013 inauguration festivities. Obama placed far stricter limits on corporate donations on 2009's inauguration donations.

The decision prioritizes a lavish celebration over the integrity of the office, and bodes poorly for an administration whose first term can be characterized as slowly turning away from a principled approach to money in politics in favor of political expediency and fundraising.

Despite some clarifications from spokespeople about the fundraising procedures, Obama's announcement raises one serious question after another:

What is Obama thinking? At a time when deficits, taxes, and government programs are being negotiated through secretive two-person dealmaking, how can it possibly be a good idea to fund a huge party with huge corporate donations? If it's that hard to raise $40M for the inauguration, why not change the inauguration, rather than loosening the policy? Is this set of celebrations really so important?

In a way, the inauguration is an expo for the biggest money-in-politics players (to paraphrase my colleague Kathy Kiely). Even if Sheldon Adelson doesn't throw a casino-themed gala in Obama's honor, there's a whole machinery in DC built on brokering wealth and influence, and a good party feeds the scene. Neither defending the celebrations nor priming the check-writers presents a good public interest case for this move.

Will the donations be well disclosed? A spokesperson claims that donations will be posted online regularly, but that's a small consolation. Will we know who is donating, reliably, in real-time, online? Probably not. And what's to stop donors with politically troublesome identities from laundering their donations through each other? Until legislation like the DISCLOSE Act passes, the answer is: nothing.

Isn't conflict everywhere? Press accounts are also describing a conflict of interest policy that will vet donors against potential conflicts of interest, and return troublesome donations, including lobbyists.  This is a laughable conflict of interest protection -- if BP's lobbyists can't donate, isn't a donation from BP itself far, far more problematic? Obama's ethics policies continue to rely on vilifying lobbyists while ignoring real influence, like people who leave the White House to direct teams of lobbyists. A conflict of interest policy should actually avoid conflicts of interest; a real conflict of interest policy would refuse  $250K donations from corporations.

What's for sale? Even if the donations are online, we don't know what's up for sale. What kind of access does a $200,000 contribution buy? And beyond parade seats and celebratory breakfasts, what else will the administration be giving up?  Top administration officials were free to participate in fundraisers where unlimited donations were solicited from  dark money c4s in the run-up to the election, and Obama had no disclosure policy or public explanation of how cabinet members were involved.  Who will solicit these donations, and how can we be sure their public service is unaffected?

The Obama administration is likely to, again, justify their behavior by saying that they're following the law.  Whenever their accountability policies have loopholes or problems, rather than fixing them, the administration asks to be judged in comparison to Bush, saying their record speaks for itself. At some point, though, it's time to judge Obama in his own words. Obama said unlimited donations sully our democracy, threaten public service, and weaken representation -- and has now chosen to embrace them.

Maybe Obama's setting the tone for his second term: we're not worried about whether we look like reformers at all.

How are House and Senate candidates' war-chests faring this election cycle? The animations below show who has been pulling further ahead, and who has been closing fund-raising gaps as the races mature.

Itemized contributions, which are reported to the FEC along with the date the contributions were made, have allowed us to reconstruct a detailed accounting of the funds available to candidates over time. Beginning with the first quarter of 2011, we looked at all itemized contributions made to candidates in competitive races (rated by Cook as Likely, Lean or Toss up within the last month) reported to the FEC up through the end of the second quarter of this year (the most recent filing deadline). This does not include Independent Expenditures supporting or opposing candidates by outside groups, nor "dark money" expenditures from 501 (c) organizations like Crossroads GPS.

These animations show the evolving status of the funding landscape in competitive Senate and House races through the second quarter of 2012. The Democratic funding advantage is displayed on the y-axis; bars with positive values indicate that the Democratic candidate leads in fund-raising, while a negative value indicates that the Republican candidate leads. Races are colored according to the party which previously held the senate seat, either as an incumbent running in this cycle or a retiring senator.

Money in Senate races over time:

The time series animation above highlights a few trends. The first is that the party that currently controls the seat tends to lead in funding. This is unsurprising, given incumbents’ inherent fund-raising advantages. North Dakota and Hawaii are interesting exceptions to this. (Races can be highlighted by clicking their check-box on the right of the graph.) A partial explanation is that both races are for open seats. So current democratic candidates do not benefit from true incumbency advantages in fund-raising potential.

Another notable pattern we see is that challengers who join the race later tend to fund-raise faster than the incumbent once they join the race. Massachusetts is a particularly strong example of this effect, where Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren got into the race comparatively late, but once she did, she caught up with incumbent Senator Scott Brown (R) quickly. This also occurred somewhat in Virginia, Hawaii, Ohio and Nebraska.

Below is a similar time-series chart for competitive House races. This graphic also displays the Democratic funding advantage in each race, based on itemized contributions reported to the FEC through the second quarter of 2012. Once again color of the bar indicates which party controlled the seat in the prior Congress. New seats created by redistricting in which neither party has historical control are denoted by green.

Money in House races over time:

The major trend visible above is that in House races, funding gaps between parties seem to grow over time. Once again, candidates trying to hold a seat (e.g. a democrat running in a district in which the seat was controlled by the democratic party in the last cycle) tend to do better in terms of fund-raising than candidates trying to flip a seat.

This effect is not determinative in all cases, however. In in the AR-04, AZ-01, CA-09, CA-47, IN-02, MD-06, NC-13, and the OK-02 candidates challenging for a seat previously held by the opposing party are out performing the candidate from the incumbent party.

We also see a "rebound effect" similar to what was observed in the Senate races, in which money comes in faster later on to overcome initial leads in some of the races. The FL-22, IL-08, MA-06, NC-08, and the NV-03 are all interesting to watch in this regard.

As these races continue and more data is available, graphics of this kind will become increasingly informative. Ultimately we will be able to pair this time-series funding data with time-series polling. This will provide a window into how changes in funding advantages and changes in polling leads are correlated.

If you haven’t already listened to This American Life’s episode, “Take the Money and Run for Office,” I encourage you to set aside 45 minutes in your busy life so you can listen to it uninterrupted. It’s a brilliant piece of storytelling that goes far and beyond my most optimistic dreams for how long-form journalism can illuminate how money affects politics (and governance) in our nation. (Plus, this Brooklyn-born Woody Allen fan was especially delighted with the clever headline This American Life used, a play on one of Allen’s earliest feature films, “Take the Money and Run.”)

As Communications Director at Sunlight, I work nearly every day with reporters to better understand our work, how government works and how to follow the money in our elections to know who and what influences our elected officials. I can’t express to you how proud I was to hear how Sunlight’s Party Time site and on-going work helped inform the narrative expertly created by This American Life, Planet Money and NPR’s congressional team.

From the episode’s gripping intro of my own representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton, pleading for donations to the deft editing of appropriate music clips to keep the story moving, they did a superb job in translating the wonky details to something any listener could understand. They went above and beyond to show how we can use data to create transparency around how members of Congress raise money and the impact their fundraising has on their policy work and relationships with lobbyists. We worked with NPR's teams in their reporting, and are thrilled their work is already elevating public dialogue about an issue Sunlight (and you, dear reader), has cared about for years. It is definitely worth listening to, reading and sharing with your friends.

This episode has also taught me patience - as a PR professional, that’s not something that comes to me naturally. Nearly four years ago, Sunlight launched Party Time, the first centralized, free site where anyone could monitor the fundraising circuit that keeps members of Congress flush with cash for their re-elections--a persistent activity that keeps lawmakers busy hobnobbing with lobbyists and donors morning, noon and night. While reporters instantly began citing Party Time’s data to provide context on their reporting on political fundraising, I longed for a feature-length news piece that would create the ‘a-ha’ moment needed to really bring home why understanding the site’s data matters.

The Federal Election Commission releases campaign finance disclosures months after the money is raised and cashed; Party Time collects information on fundraisers that are happening today—and next week, and in some cases months ahead. When we created it, we thought that even though it could never be as comprehensive as we’d want since we rely upon the kindness of political insiders to leak the invitations they receive [hint, anyone can upload an invite]. But we always hoped Party Time would prove to be a useful early warning system for tracking influence in Congress, especially since it is the only data source that provides real-time and prospective insight into the fundraising activities of federal candidates. It may not be a site that attracts a lot of online visitors, but it does document daily how members of Congress chase donors, proving to be a powerful, unique resource for disclosure where no disclosure is required by law.

And, with news accounts like This American Life’s episode, I hope more people become interested in tuning into how Washington truly operates and joining Sunlight in our work to continue to shine a light on it all.

This is our democracy, after all, not one just for the one percent.

**Graphic of Party Time data by Lam Thuy Vo, NPR | Planet Money

I don't usually write non-social media related Tools for Transparency posts, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to write about Square, a simple mobile app and hardware accessory that turns your mobile device into a credit card reader.

This simple app allows anyone with an iPhone, iPad or Android phone to take credit card payments, bypassing much of the hassle required with traditional credit card readers and transactions. The app makes it simple to collect payments, and donations, on the go, sending funds directly to your bank account.  The process for ordering the device and setting up the application was simple and Square takes a small 2.75% fee from each transaction.

A small nonprofit that I volunteer with recently held a fundraiser and as most supporters are accustomed to, they arrived with cash in hand for event tickets and donations.  A few came with less cash than they had realized but we were able to accommodate them because I had downloaded the Square app for my iPod and ran their credit card through the attached reader. An elegant solution for people that don't walk around with much cash.

Here's how it works.

Once you've received the card reader, plug it into the audio jack of your mobile device.  Open up the Square app (make sure that you're connected to the web) and you will be shown a screen asking for the amount and type of transaction:

Next you'll need to swipe the credit card:

Sign for the card using your finger:

Once the card clears, the receipt can either be sent to a cell phone or an email address:

The potential for fundraising, as in my example, is obvious and of course, can be applied to any transparency project and cause. I think it's important to note, when you're accepting donations, where the money is going and whether or not the donation is tax deductible.

What are your experiences with Square? Have you used it in the past?

Last week, the New York Post reported that "[s]ome Republican congressmen have been warned to keep their distance from the female lobbyists who prowl Capitol Hill." Roll Call followed on the report with this article. The article includes these curious paragraphs:

Boehner first told Roll Call of his conversations with House Republicans in late May after he asked former Rep. Mark Souder to resign after the Indiana Republican had an extramarital affair with a staff member. Boehner said he had spoken to several Members over the past year and a half who, he believed, had done something or came close to doing something unethical. “I’ve had Members in here where I thought they crossed the line,” Boehner said at the time, mentioning former GOP Reps. John Doolittle (Calif.) and Rick Renzi (Ariz.). “I have had others I thought were approaching the line.”

Emphasis added. Both Doolittle and Renzi did not run for reelection in 2008 and haven't been in office over the past year and a half.

Since it's becoming the new norm--Mark Foley and Eric Massa--to question whether leadership is properly policing and referring to the ethics committee all potential unethical dalliances, it may be important to ask which, if not Doolittle and Renzi, members have "done something ... unethical."

That being said: Which members is Boehner referring to here and has he referred any of these cases to the ethics committee, or threatened to, over the past year and a half?

Does this simply refer to the case of former Rep. Mark Souder? (Souder, who was having an affair with a staffer, resigned after Republican leadership threatened to refer his case to the ethics committee.) Or are there others?

This past weekend Sen. Max Baucus' political action committee (PAC) hosted a three-day retreat fundraising event at the Big Sky Resort with "fly-fishing in three nearby rivers, golfing on an Arnold Palmer-designed course, horseback riding and hiking, family fun and gorgeous scenery." The entrance fee for the event was $2,500 per individual and $5,000 for a PAC. While the roster of interest groups, lobbyists and other individuals in attendance is unknown at this time, we do know who was a no-show: Max Baucus.

According to the National Journal's Under the Influence blog, Sen. Baucus announced his intention to avoid the event before the fundraiser commenced to "tend to faltering bipartisan negotiations over health care reform legislation." The senator will not only be missing those who want his ear on a variety of issues coming before his powerful committee -- cap and trade and health care -- he'll also be missing a protest held by advocates for single payer health care.

Despite missing this fundraiser, the Montana senator's Glacier PAC has already pulled in large sums of money from the health and insurance sector and lobbyists representing both sectors. Since January, Baucus' Glacier PAC has raised $99,500 from health and insurance PACs and lobbyists representing health and insurance organizations. This represents one-third of all contributions to Glacier PAC this year.

Many of these contributions were filed with his committee in the days soon after other fundraising weekends in the mountains of Montana. Over the weekend of February 6, Baucus hosted his Eigth Annual Ski and Snow Mobile Weekend, a fundraising weekend get-away much like the July 31-Aug 2 event that Baucus skipped. Contributions that were filed on February 16 include four health care PACs and two lobbyists for health care companies. The PACs included National Emergency Medicine PAC, Sanofi-Pasteur, American College of Cardiology and American College of Radiology Association. Three out of these four PACs contributed the maximum $5,000 with Sanofi-Pasteur contributing $2,500. The lobbyists included Tracy Spicer (Aetna, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Bravo Health, Healthcare Leadership Council, Heritage Services, Medco, National Health Policy Group, Travelers Companies, UnitedHealth Group) and William Oldaker (Adventist Health Systems, Healthcare Quality Strategies, Intermountain Health Care, Iowa Foundation for Medical Care, IPRO, Lumetra, Mpro, Ohio KePRO, Parexel International, TMF Health Quality Institute, West Virginia Medical Institute).

Contributors to Sen. Baucus' Glacier PAC also include some of his former staffers now lobbying for health care organizations. These include former chief of staff David Castagnetti ($3,000), Nick Giordano ($1,000) and Roger Blauwet ($2,500). Castagnetti represents a wide array of health care companies including America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), American College of Cardiologists, Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Proctor & Gamble and Merck. Blauwet represents Merck, Wyeth, Rx Benefits Coalition and the Association of Financial Guaranty Insurers. Giordano is listed in reports as representing Covidien, Health Care Service Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, McKesson Corporation, Milliman Care Guidelines and the National Association of Public Hospitals. Many of these organizations have also made PAC contributions to the senator's Glacier PAC.

While Sen. Baucus has promised not to accept any more contributions from health care PACs, he is still willing to accept contributions from their lobbyists and executives. It will be interesting to see who showed up at the senator's big summer weekend getaway, even if the senator didn't make it there himself.

Full list of health and insurance PAC and lobbyist contributions below:

Glacier PAC Contributions 2009 (Health and Insurance PACs and Lobbyists):

Yesterday, I posted about the mountain of health and insurance PAC money pouring into the 2010 reelection coffers of Sen. Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the ever-important Senate Finance Committee. That money came into his account like a flooding river, but the real torrent of funds comes in the waning days of June. Could this be because of these two fundraisers held for Sen. Grassley on June 22 and June 24?

From June 22 to the end of the month Sen. Grassley raised a total of $44,700. During this time he was the beneficiary of two fundraisers, one held by the lobbyist for an alternative health organization that has lampooned reform efforts, whose invites can be found at Sunlight's Party Time web site. Back in June, Nancy Watzman, at the helm of the Party Time blog, wrote about the June 24 event hosted by Sam Brunelli, lobbyist for the Whitaker Health Freedom Foundation:

Sam Brunelli, who works for the Whitaker Health Freedom Foundation, the political arm of the Freedom of Health Foundation, and his wife, Robin Read, are feting Grassley at a breakfast on June 24 at the Capitol Hill Club. The Foundation, headed by Dr. Julian Whitaker of dietary supplement fame, states it opposes the government and the pharmaceutical industry whenever they “suppress the truth about alternative medical therapies and/or nutritional supplementation.” Read is president and CEO of the Foundation for Women Legislators, which includes Dr. Whitaker on its board. The Freedom of Health Foundation did not return a call inquiring about the event. Brunelli is introduced as a lobbyist on the organization’s Web site, here; however there are no official records of his work at least as a federal lobbyist here, according to lobbyist disclosure reports. The most recent available tax forms filed by the Whitaker Health Freedom Foundation, the political arm, claim a budget of just $34,000 and make no mention of payments to staff. (See the organization’s 1998 990 form here.) Brunelli formerly served as executive director of the conservative group the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which works to advance conservative state legislators. He left the group in 1995 over charges of mismanagement and personal enrichment, according to a 1995 National Journal report.

The majority of the contributions coming in during this high water mark for Sen. Grassley's PAC fundraising came from health professional organizations, all of whom paid equal to or above the amount required for PACs to gain entrance to the fundraising parties on June 22 and June 24.

The amount raised over the final eight days in June accounts for over one-quarter of the health and insurance PAC money raised by Sen. Grassley in the second quarter. The other three quarters came over the course of 83 days. Knowing this, it appears that the two fundraisers had the desired effect.

There's nothing really new in this new study, but it reconfirms what we've known (and updates the figures for Congressional candidates) about who provides the lion's share of money for Congressional campaigns. (Some of the older studies on this topic were done by Public Campaign, and I even recall one funded by the Joyce Foundation that doesn't appear to be available on the Web. (Too bad. That one was the first and it was a real eye-opener since it confirmed all suspicions about who gives the big money in politics: white, rich males.)

Lee Drutman, writing in the new Miller-McCune magazine, profiles a new analysis. University of Maryland political scientists researched and wrote "The Check Is in the Mail: Interdistrict Funding Flows in Congressional Elections," which shows how money contributed to congressional elections is raised in ever increasing percentages from a small number of wealthy zip codes, places that Drutman termed "the political ATM's of the campaign trail." These locales, full of wealthy and politically engaged donors include Hollywood, Calif.; Manhattan's Upper East Side; Greenwich, Conn.; and the suburbs of Washington, D.C. As I said, no great surprises.There just aren't large numbers of people out there with either with disposable incomes or the inclination to make large campaign. Because of this, candidates are increasingly dependent on donors concentrated in those few wealthy urban centers. The report found that in the typical congressional race, less than one-third of individual donations to a candidate came  from people who could actually vote for the candidate and over two-thirds (70.2 percent to be exact) from nonresidents. As Drutman notes, this percentage is steadily increasing, up from 54.5 percent in 1996 and 63 percent in 2000. And as of 2004, in only one in five congressional districts residents provided a majority of funds raised for the campaigns of the candidates running to represent it. And in 18 percent of the districts, 90 percent or more of the funds came from non-residents.

The motivation for the nonresidential donations is "primary partisan and strategic nature, rather than access-oriented or expressive/identity based," according to the report. "Funds are efficiently redistributed from a small number of highly educated, wealthy congressional districts to competitive districts anywhere in the country." As Drutman notes, less than 0.6 percent of voting age Americans contributed of more than $200 to a campaign in 2004.

So what's to be done about it?