On October 5, 2008 U.S. and Libyan business leaders met with Department of Commerce Assistant Secretary Israel Hernandez as he opened a new Foreign Commercial Service office in Tripoli. In the same year, more companies and trade associations than ever before disclosed that they were lobbying the U.S. government in Washington to keep the newly opened African nation open for business. Much of that lobbying aided in the growing U.S.-Libyan business connection that led to the opening of the office.

According to lobbying disclosure reports, fifteen companies and two trade associations listed Libyan issues on their lobbying disclosure forms since President George W. Bush lifted economic sanctions on Libya in 2004. Libya’s large oil reserves, the biggest of any African nation, were the main focus of the lobbying efforts in Washington.

These companies include a who’s who of international oil companies including ExxonMobil, BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum, Shell, and Hess Corporation. The non-energy firms lobbying on Libya include Boeing, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, Fluor Corporation, Halliburton, Motorola, and Raytheon. All of these companies have been engaged in business deals or attempted to enter the Libyan market over the past six years.

The current revolution in Libya has upended the recent engagement between the Government of Libya, the foreign oil companies, and the other corporations that have worked to enter the country’s market.

Lobbying was a regular feature as these companies sought to protect their new investments and get the U.S. government to smooth out business problems with the erratic regime. One issue that combined both of these lobbying topics came about from one amendment proposed to deal with state sponsors of terrorism.

According to diplomatic cables obtained by Wikileaks, an amendment added to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008, known as the Lautenberg amendment, made it easier for plaintiffs in terrorism lawsuits to seize foreign government-owned assets from state sponsors of terrorism. This proved problematic for companies that had already entered into business arrangements with Libya as the government had not finished making payments to plaintiffs in the Lockerbie bombing case.

In 1988, terrorists blew up a passenger airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland at the behest of the government of Libya. In total, 270 people were killed. In 2002, Libya announced that it would pay the victim’s families $2.7 billion and paid it back in part as sanctions were lifted from the country and the country was removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

This initial payment led to further discussion to repay victim’s families for other terrorist attacks that Libya undertook in the past. The passage of the Lautenberg amendment occurred in the context of these new negotiations.

The cables show that the Libyan government told the U.S. oil companies that “it is "their problem" to solve, and has begun requiring U.S. and other companies to conduct all operations in non-dollar denominations.” This meant that the companies would have to face the consequences of any future settlements that occurred under the Lautenberg amendment.

For the large part of 2008, the fifteen companies lobbying then focused on the repeal of the Lautenberg amendment. On August 4, 2008, they were successful. The resolution, known as the Libyan Claims Resolution Act, exempted Libya from the Lautenberg amendment barring the country settle for the victims of the other four terrorist attacks. On August 14, 2008, the United States approved a $1.8 billion settlement for the victims and the companies no longer faced the possibility of asset forfeiture.

These companies did not just rely on lobbying to their benefit over the years, but also created a non-lobbying advocacy organization to influence public opinion. The US-Libya Business Association was founded by many of the companies that lobbied Washington on Libyan issues in the 2000s along with White & Case, the law firm retained by the Government of Libya as registered foreign lobbyists

In 2009, the US-Libya Business Association ceded all of its advocacy work to the National Foreign Trade Council, a long-standing free trade group operating in Washington. According to a press release, “The association will remain a separate entity but will be co-located with the NFTC.”

With the present turmoil in Libya, the future prospects of the companies that have lobbied to protect their stake in the country are unclear. Some companies have evacuated employees while others have stated that their operations can still continue. The political response from the United States government may be equally worrying.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry said that the crackdown “beyond despicable” and called for American and international businesses to cease operations immediately and for the Obama Administration to re-impose sanctions lifted by President Bush. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen echoed Kerry’s call for a re-imposition of sanctions.

As the revolution continues unabated, these companies may wind up needing their lobbyists more than ever.

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.

"My name is Daniel Plainview and this is my son and partner H.W. Plainview. I'm an oil man." Ok, ok, there won't be blood, but there will be money made from oil profits. Over the last two weeks, gas prices and oil industry influence have been a key focus in both the media and here on this blog.

Last week, I looked at campaign contributions from the oil industry to a group of Republicans staging a pro-oil industry protest on the floor of the House. There are other ways to look at the economy of influence using publicly available data. For one, members of Congress must disclose their assets in personal financial disclosure forms. In this case, I want to look at stocks, in particular oil stocks. Thanks to Open Secrets' personal financial disclosure database, I was able to put together the nifty chart below.

This chart shows stock holdings in the leading oil companies by members of the House of Representatives. If you aren't familiar with personal financial disclosures, they require lawmakers to list assets in a range (i.e.: $15,001-$50,000). In the chart you will see a low estimate, a high estimate, and an average. In some cases, lawmakers list the actual value - not a range - and that is listed in this color.

So, who's going to make money if Congress passes pro-oil industry legislation: