A bipartisan group of Members of Congress sent a letter to House and Senate leadership outlining specific transparency recommendations for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, aka the Super Committee.  The letter echoes Sunlight’s proposals for Super Committee transparency, calling for live broadcast of committee meetings; posting of the Super Committee’s final recommendations for 72 hours prior to a final committee vote; weekly posting of campaign contributions received by committee members; and weekly posting of meetings between committee members and special interests.

If these common sense proposals are enacted, they will help to begin to rebuild the public’s trust in the budget process. On the other hand, shrouding the work of the Super Committee behind a veil of secrecy will delegitimize its work, harkening back to the days when decisions were made in smoke filled rooms where money and power changed hands without pubic scrutiny.

None of the four proposals is controversial.  Ensuring the meetings and hearings of the Super Committee are public and online should be so obvious as to be a given. Given the importance of the Super Committee’s work, its hearings should not be held to a lesser standard than any other congressional committee—all of which assume hearings will be public unless national security would be at risk. Arguments that committee members won’t be able to deliberate if the meetings are public are, in a word, silly.  Public hearings will in no way thwart members from speaking and negotiating privately with one another. Making hearings public will provide an important window into the committee’s goals, its process and its progress.

The remainder of the recommendations similarly fall into a “been there, done that” category so should not be objectionable. Speaker Boehner has already endorsed a 72-hour rule for legislation. Seventy-two hours of public scrutiny and debate should likewise be required before a vote on the Super Committee’s recommendations.  Under current law, campaign contributions are public, and if they are given within 20 days of an election, they must be reported within 48 hours. Given the short life of the Super Committee, anything less frequent than the weekly reporting called for here risks nondisclosure of contributions until after the committee’s work is complete. Finally, as the letter points out, disclosure of meetings by lobbyists and other special interests has been required under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  Given that the Super Committee lobbying frenzy has already begun, the public should be made aware of who is asking for what.

When they return from recess, House and Senate leaders should announce that these common sense transparency measures will be adopted to ensure accountability and integrity in the Super Committee process.

Over the last week, the push for an open "supercommittee" has grown into a national issue. The issue has become the subject of pronouncements from congressional leaders, numerous bills, analysis and advocacy from non-profits, and intense public debate. The issue has now crossed over from a sidebar issue, to being a central part of the "supercommittee" story.

We're now getting a sense of where opposition to an open "supercommittee" might come from.  While Sunlight is calling for 5 core transparency recommendations, among others, we've occasionally seen resistance to the idea of open meetings for the joint committee. We're calling for "live webcasts of all official meetings and hearings," and we still don't know whether the supercommittee will hold public meetings or not.

The concern is that public meetings will make it harder to make tough decisions, causing further political paralysis.  This criticism, however, fails to distinguish between two things: making official meetings of the committee public, and making all deliberations among members of the committee public.  The first should be a no-brainer.

Official meetings of important government committees are held in public in the US. That's been reliably true for decades, and it's how we expect our government to work.  For good reason, too -- representation can only work if voters have some sense of what their representatives are doing, so that their vote bears some relation to their representative's record.  There are some exceptions to this general rule; congressional committees meet in out of public view for well-defined, largely noncontroversial reasons that are spelled out in the rules of the House and Senate.  Conference committees are the biggest exception to this rule, often evading requirements to meet publicly, but their work is in reconciling already passed legislation that has passed both the House and Senate.

And this joint committee is doing far more than just reconciling already-passed legislation.  It's a replacement for Congress altogether, save final approval. The House and Senate may have bound themselves to this requirement, but that doesn't make it any less remarkable.  The prerogatives of the minority have been completely waived in both chambers.  For this bill, there is no motion to recommit in the House, and no filibuster in the Senate.  Perhaps most unusually, inaction has been made nearly impossible, as failing to act means incurring deep budget cuts that were designed to be politically unpalatable.  This committee was designed to have to work, and Congress has been shunted out of the way.  These procedural requirements add up to mean that the joint committee is functioning as a replacement for Congress, and needs to be more open than Congress in order to be considered legitimate.  Holding official meetings in public is only the most basic first step toward that accountability.

We've seen the misguided objection that open meetings would squelch deliberations, and make it impossible to work through politically difficult ideas.  This is wrong.  Nothing about holding public meetings would keep Senator Murray from talking with Senator Toomey in private about any topic they please.  Having official meetings be public just guarantees the limited window into official business that everyone has come to rightfully expect in a democracy.  While these meetings may be full of pre-prepared speeches and posturing, they're still a public exercise that is fully worth having.

To go beyond public meetings and affect deliberations and negotiations, as some commenters fear, would take far more than what Sunlight is proposing.  Ex parte rules do exist in other contexts (like the FCC), and in some legislatures.  But let's be clear: in order to force all negotiations among some Members of Congress to be public, we'd be imposing a speech restriction.  And restricting the speech of our representatives is an unwise idea, to say the least.

In place of trying to restrict the speech of Members of Congress, you can carve out certain kinds of interactions which need to be reported publicly.  And that's exactly what exists already through our Lobbyist Disclosure Act, that Sunlight (and Reps. Quigley and Renacci) are calling to have expanded for the supercommittee.  If only 12 Members are going to be given the power to decide our alternative to the unpopular trigger, we should know when they're meeting with registered lobbyists or other powerful interests, and who is donating to their campaigns.

But even more basic than lobbying disclosure is the idea that the official work of our government should be done in full public view.  The perceived legitimacy of the "super committee" depends on it.  American dialog and deliberation are not so weak that they can't survive alongside public meetings.

Sunlight is ramping up our effort to get the new "Super Congress" committee to be as transparent as they are powerful.

We have honed yesterday's blog post into five requirements, and today we're sending a letter (see below) to congressional leaders demanding a transparent process.  We're inviting other organizations and individuals to support the effort, and so far CREW and Openthegovernment.org have signed on.  Please visit our campaign page, and sign up to show your support.

Open government doesn't happen automatically.  If the debt ceiling negotiations thus far haven't lived up to your expectations, then it's time to demand a better process.  And if you've got other ideas for how the process should be more open, we'd love to hear, and link to them.  POGO has a great post with more ideas for the "Super Congress" here.

Congress is clearly listening, as we've already seen one bill introduced with similar requirements -- Senator Vitter introduced a real-time campaign finance transparency bill yesterday.  Please add your support and demand a transparent "Super Congress".

Our five asks follow, and then the letter we're sending congressional leaders today:

Five things that the Super Congress should post on its website:

• Live webcasts of all official meetings and hearings
• The Committee's report should be posted for 72 hours before a final committee vote
• Disclosure of every meeting held with lobbyists and other powerful interests
• Disclosure of campaign contributions as they are received (on campaign sites, not the committee site)
• Financial disclosures of Committee members and staffers

Sunlight Letter to Leadership on Super Committee 2011-08-03

Well, here we are.

Details of the budget deal negotiated last week have finally been posted online, and e-government programs are likely to be deeply cut. The bill will come to a vote in the next few days, and will likely become law, since it represents an agreement reached by congressional negotiators and the White House.

What the agreement is, however, we don't actually know.

Only this morning, three days after the deal was reached, are we seeing the full legislation that Congressional leaders and the White House have already agreed to. And we still don't know what else was agreed to -- hearings, scheduling Senate or House votes, etc. Reid, Boehner, and Obama should all be asked what terms of their agreement are that are outside this new bill.

The urgent need to fund the government (funding expires again this Friday at midnight) will again force Congress's hand, and the bill is unlikely to get a full 72 hours online as Speaker Boehner repeatedly pledged throughout last summer. Though no one, at this point, would advocate shutting down the government in order to give a bill three days online. Especially when an agreement has already been reached, the details have been locked in, and the emergency of a shutdown is looming.

This week's rushed and hollow congressional proceedings, as disappointing as they are, are really a natural extension of the budget negotiations train wreck we've been watching for years. The rank and file members of both the House and Senate have handed power to the Speaker and Majority Leader, a situation only made worse by last year's lack of a budget, and the ideologically charged brinksmanship that is characteristic of a budget fight played out during a divided government.

A very small number of political leaders have ended up with startling control over the country's priorities, and the public has been left piecing together what is happening well after it's been decided. The proverbial "table" of viable options ("on the table," "off the table") has somehow ended up in the back room.

Glimpses of the budget negotiations have been visible in the press, but those details tend to be the obvious theater of base appeasement. Boehner denies there's a deal; anonymous Obama staffers paint the President as both tough-as-nails and as a great convener; and Reid accuses Boehner of reneging. In other words, we get whatever they want us to hear.

If we continue to accept this manner of negotiations as standard operating procedure, this is what we're going to get, for the 2012 budget, the debt ceiling, and probably everything else. While it's difficult to force all of any negotiation to be public, we've got to be able to do better than this. Is it really the same President who once promised healthcare negotiations would be on C-SPAN that is now enforcing gag orders and non-disclosure agreements on the most far-reaching of public policies?

The same politicians that decried last year's legislative initiatives as too sweeping, too secretive, or "rammed through" have negotiated a package that amends all of those initiatives, in private. Congress is left as an antiquated afterthought, a bygone conclusion, a formality.

The White House has been just as bad. The Federal Employees' union had to use FOIA and then sue to try to get access to OMB's contingency plans for a shutdown, which were treated as political documents, rather than management documents vital to the operations of a vast bureaucracy. And OMB guidance advised senior staff to repeat that this was all part of "winning the future," -- the most base example of vapid ideology winning out over merit and substance.

And now we're left with the electronic government fund, once at $34 million, now reduced to $8 million. Is that sufficient? Will USASpending, the ITDashboard, or Data.gov continue to function? The real shame here is that we don't even know. Nobody does.

Vivek Kundra, speaking just now in a Senate hearing, said (paraphrased) that they're in the process of reassessing priorities, and it's unclear what will change.

So the signature sites of the Obama transparency initiative have been cut by a deal that the Obama administration agreed to, and they don't even know how those sites will be affected. If Vivek Kundra doesn't know, you can be sure that appropriators don't, and that the "negotiators" striking this deal were utterly unaware of the consequences of their "agreement."

The electronic government fund deserves a public hearing of its merits, as do all public policies.

If nobody demands better from our leaders, this will be the best we're going to get.

Divided government should mean that we get to see the strengths of each branch played off each other, creating accountability. If a few party leaders are allowed to play Congress and make their own decisions, public accountability gets manipulated, and collaboration gets replaced by collusion.

The Senate's version of the health care bill was published on Wednesday, along with its CBO score.

Since the first preliminary procedural vote isn't expected until Saturday evening, it looks likely that the Senate's bill will see 72 hours in public, online, before its first vote.

Senators, their staff, and the public will all have a chance to digest this legislation before its formal floor consideration.

While the ReadtheBill.org effort has focused primarily on the House, the same banner was taken up in the Senate in early October, when Senators Lincoln, Bayh, Landrieu, Lieberman, McCaskill, Nelson, Pryor, and Webb wrote Majority Leader Reid, requesting 72 hours before an initial vote:

Every step of the process needs to be transparent, and information regarding the bill needs to be readily available to our constituents before the Senate starts to vote on legislation that will affect the lives of every American. The legislative text and complete budget scores from the Congressional Budget Office (C.B.O.) of the health care legislation considered on the Senate floor should be made available on a Web site the public can access for at least 72 hours prior to the first vote to proceed to the legislation.

By posting these materials online, Majority Leader Reid is strengthening and legitimizing the floor debate on the bill, and probably defending against some process criticism.  He'll also be raising the bar, showing that public scrutiny of legislation online should be a welcome component of Congress's work.

As I suggested after Speaker Pelosi's commitment and delivery on their 72 hour promise, if they can do it for health care -- the toughest and most contentious of contexts -- they can do it for every bill.

Knowing we had a great opportunity to corner Sen. Ensign, who's blocking a bill requiring electronic reporting for senators' campaign contributions, we sent our intrepid staff to the National Press Club today, where he was holding forth on other matters. We asked Sen. Ensign why he continues to hold up S. 223.

As we've talked about before, Ensign's insistence that the Senate vote on a controversial and unrelated amendment has jeopardized this straightforward bill that otherwise has broad, bipartisan support. Without that amendment, S. 223 would sail through the Senate with nearly unanimous backing.

During the Press Club event and after, staff from Sunlight and the Center for Responsive Politics asked Sen. Ensign if he would be willing to lift his objection to the bill if he was promised a hearing on his amendment in the Rules Committee (an offer already made by Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein). Sen. Ensign declined, insisting that he wants one hour of debate on the amendment, and would subject his amendment to, as he put it, a "60 vote requirement."

Ensign's amendment has no place in this bill, and we question his motives in insisting that it be part of the debate on the electronic filing measure. It is disingenuous for him to claim that he is "100% for electronic reporting" (subscription required for that link) while single-handedly preventing this bill from passing. But, we are cautiously optimistic that, as Ensign himself pointed out, his amendment would be defeated if it came up for a vote.

We hope Senator Reid will take Senator Ensign up on his offer and bring S. 223 to the floor if the Senate reconvenes after Election Day. We know how the Senate works, though. Senator Reid will want to know Ensign's amendment will fail before he can bring the bill up for a vote.

That's where you can help. Go to Pass223.com and call your senators to urge them to support the bill and also oppose Ensign's amendment. If enough of them agree to oppose Ensign's amendment, this bill will become law and we will finally have timely, online access to who is funding Senate campaigns.

And thanks to all of you who have already called your senators and reported back on our Pass223.com site!