The House-Senate conference committee on financial regulatory reform legislation has begun its work with the goal of completing the bill and sending it to the President before the July 4th recess. As Chairman Dodd said, “It is our intention that this conference be done as openly as possible. Not only do we want people to know how we are proceeding, people have a right to know.” That sentiment must extend after the conference. Before Congress votes, the final financial reform bill must be online 72 hours.

Even if the conference itself is fully transparent, citizens, journalists and lawmakers should have the opportunity to examine the changes to legislation and raise questions and concerns about the bill while it can still have an impact. In 72 hours, any citizen, advocacy organization, analyst or media entity has time to review and assess the impact of the legislation, mobilize others in support or opposition, and take any action they believe appropriate.

Sunlight has long supported H. Res. 554, a bill that would mandate a 72-hour rule for all non-emergency legislation. But, even without rule-changing legislation being passed, Congress has realized the importance of giving the public 72 hours to review numerous important and controversial bills, including the health care reform bill. The public deserves the same opportunity with the financial regulation overhaul.

The public should not accept excuses from Congress as to why they cannot make the bill publicly available for 72 hours prior to a vote. The House passed its regulatory reform bill in December of 2009 while the Senate approved its bill weeks ago. Providing three more days for the public to review and digest the legislation before a final vote will not cause markets to crash, retirement funds to be depleted or banks “too big to fail” to shutter their doors.

Join us in our effort to ensure transparency of the financial reform bill online for 72. Call your Representatives in the House and Senate and ask them to demand that the financial regulatory reform bill is online for 72 hours before a final vote. And join us in the fight for more transparency by signing Public=Online pledge.

Yesterday, the Sunlight Foundation and more than 20 organizations and individuals delivered a letter to Speaker of the House Pelosi, Minority Leader Boehner, House Rules Committee Chairwoman Slaughter, and Rules Ranking Member Dreier calling for a Rules Committee hearing to explore the benefits of amending House Rules to require that legislation be posted online for 72 hours prior to consideration.

We believe that it is fundamental to our democratic principles that Members of Congress, their staff, the public and the press have the opportunity to read and digest legislation before it comes to the House floor.

A hearing at this time is appropriate and necessary to move stalled 72-hour rule legislation forward. House and Senate leaders understand the importance of providing online access to legislation and have indicated some willingness to make health care legislation available prior to a vote. Those promises are appreciated, but an ad hoc approach to allowing the public to read the bill is not sufficient. Members of Congress should be governed by a rule that ensures that all legislation is available to the public at specific online locations for a minimum number of hours.

A discharge petition calling for a vote on H. Res. 554, a 72-Rule resolution sponsored by Rep. Brian Baird and John Culberson, garnered 182 signatures, shy of the 218 needed to move the bill to the floor. While it is possible additional members will sign on, progress seems to have slowed in part because some members have raised questions about whether there may be any unforeseen consequences if a 72-hour rule is enacted. A hearing in the Rules Committee is can address those questions and go a long way towards moving this important legislation forward.

Along with the letter calling for a hearing, we delivered a petition with 21,000 signatures of individuals who joined Sunlight’s Read the Bill campaign.  They, too, want Congress post legislation and conference reports on the Internet for 72 hours before debate begins.

Too many important pieces of legislation in this and earlier congresses have been rushed. A 72-hour rule gives the public the opportunity to weigh in with their representatives before debate begins, so that their opinions can be considered and, where appropriate, used to improve bills before they become law. We don’t see a downside to such a rule, but any questions about the impact of a 72-hour rule should be addressed at a hearing. We hope after reading our letter that the leaders in the House and the Rules Committee agree.

Today House Minority Leader John Boehner endorsed the idea of a mandatory 72-hour review period for all major spending legislation. He noted the Sunlight Foundation’s advocacy for such a rule. (see video below)

The 8000 individuals who have signed our Read the Bill petition and the dozens of high profile endorsements we have garnered for the concept speak to the growing support for the commonsense solution.

ReadTheBill.org To us, it is axiomatic that if all non-emergency legislation were posted online in a searchable format at least 72 hours before consideration, the legislative process would be transformed because members of Congress would know what they were voting on before they voted. A 72-hour rule would give those outside the Capitol and K Street a chance to understand legislation and voice ways to improve it. Reporters would have meaningful opportunities to explain legislation to the public. Membership organizations, trade associations and nonprofits would be better able to serve their members by being able to review, analyze and explain legislative proposals. Corporations, small business owners and labor leaders would know how legislation might impact workers or their bottom line. Individuals would read bills on issues that are important to them and become more active participants in our democracy.

We appreciate that this commonsense idea is finally getting some high profile attention. We aren’t so naïve as to think that congressional Republicans aren’t engaging in a little partisan gamesmanship with their sudden embrace of an idea that has been around for some time. They weren’t exactly carrying the banner for the cause when, for example, they were in the majority and Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001. Debate on that bill, which dramatically expanded the federal government’s ability to spy on its citizens and altered long-held constitutional protections, began as soon as the bill was introduced. Translation: Members voted for (or less often against) the bill without having any idea of its breadth, depth or impact.

And the list goes on—omnibus spending bills with billions of dollars in spending, a bill that deregulated the financial sector and gave rise to the risky behavior that has shaken our economy, and of course the economic stimulus package were all debated without members of Congress or the public having had the chance to read them. These critical pieces of legislation and their sometimes dire results demonstrate all too convincingly that the issue of putting bills online for 72 hours is too important to become a victim of partisan sniping and finger pointing. Let’s all just admit that both parties slip controversial provisions and wasteful spending for pet projects into legislation when they hope no one is looking.

Putting bills online for 72 hours is not a panacea. But allowing for a few days for everyone to read vital legislation it is a crucial step in improving the legislative process. And if the process is better, the resulting legislation will be better too.

In the  few short weeks since we launched the Read The Bill campaign, more than 4600 people have signed our petition.

What the AIG bonus fiasco demonstrated was that Congress needs to take its time when reading legislation.  If we had 72 hours to read the Stimulus Bill, someone would have noticed the provision and fixed it before it became law.