Here are some of the more interesting media mentions of Sunlight and our friends and allies over the past week:

Alan Fram with the Associated Press wrote about how the health insurance industry is fighting to prevent the Congress from passing a health care overhaul that includes a government-run plan to compete with private insurers. Fram cites data from the Center for Responsive Politics to show how health insurers have made $41 million in campaign contributions to current congressional lawmakers since 1989, “with more than half going to lawmakers on the five House and Senate panels writing this year’s health bills.” Since the beginning of 2008, insurers have spent $145 million on lobbying.

The New York Times' Jack Rosenthal, in writing the paper’s “On Language” column, mentioned how Andrew Raseij, Sunlight’s senior technology advisor and co-director of Personal Democracy Forum, is pushing for a federal law that redefines “public” to mean searchable and readable online. U.S. Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.) is drafting just such legislation. Rosenthal also noted how the Senate does not disclose campaign-contribution information to the Federal Election Commission in an electronic form. “That means it must be digitized by the commission, by which time the next election may well have come and gone. Transparent? Yes, but also emasculated,” Rosenthal wrote.

Federal Computer Week’s Ben Bain wrote about how the Obama administration is asking federal agencies to gear their spending plans for science and technology in fiscal 2011 toward projects designed to drive economic growth, create energy independence, improve health, and bolster security, according to recently issued general guidance. Peter Orszag, Obama’s OMB director, outlined the new emphasis in an August 4th memo (PDF). Craig Jennings, a senior federal fiscal policy analyst with OMB Watch, said the memo is an indication that science and technology will be high priorities for the administration.

Colin Barr at Fortune magazine wrote about how skeptics are questioning a claim made by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner last Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” Geithner said taxpayers have made a small profit, $6 billion, on their investments in banks via the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Barr quotes Marcus Peacock, Pew’s project director of Subsidyscope saying the government isn’t doing enough to document what’s happening with the money. Peacock said government data collection projects are often “pockmarked” with omissions and outright errors, a pattern that hasn’t been broken with the financial bailouts. Despite the administration’s public embrace of transparency, it has failed to provide full and understandable disclosure of its actions in TARP, Peacock said.

The Brattleboro (Vt.) Reformer editorialized about the Blue Dog Coalition’s effect on the health care debate in Congress, using Dan Eggen’s article in last Friday’s edition of The Washington Post. The editorial notes Eggen citing Party Time’s compilation of records of political fundraisers since 2008. “America has been waiting for more than 60 years for universal health care. (The) Blue Dogs wouldn’t mind if it took another 60 years to give Americans what every other advanced nation in the world now has,” the editorial says. “This is yet another example of how our current system of legalized bribery, otherwise known as campaign contributions, distorts the democratic process.”

Beth Sussman, writing at the National Journal’s “Under the Influence” blog, OpenCongress' redesign. She quotes OpenCongress’ David Moore, “You never hear somebody at a bar talking about clause 56 in H.R. 3200.” So OpenCongress “enables peer-to-peer communication about the best information on bills in Congress.” Sussman reports how the site now has an email form, so you can send an email to contact lawmakers about legislation, a tracking tool so you can compare how you would vote on a piece of legislation with how your representative has voted and a personalized list of legislation you may support or oppose. “There was a real opportunity to bring together this confusing government data with helpful data and what people were saying about it,” David said. The site aims to “make all the information about Congress more accessible to people who aren’t necessarily Congress-buffs.”

USA Today wrote about documents made public by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) that showed how Amtrak wanted to fire its independent Inspector General, who was effectively forced to resign several weeks ago. The IG and the rail carrier had feuded since it was revealed in 2006 that Amtrak had spent more than $100 million in mismanaged fees to private lawyers over a five year period, allegedly violating Amtrak billing rules.

The Lincoln (Neb.) Journal Star editorialized about the need for congressional lawmakers to read legislation they are voting on. They mentioned how Sunlight is one of a number of organizations advocating that Congress put all legislation online 72 hours before they conduct a vote. The editorial called on Nebraska’s congressional delegation to support such a proposal.

To follow up on the previous post, the New York Times put together a useful chart to show the campaign giving by some of the major firms still standing. These firms are likely to play a large lobbying role in the fight over the new regulatory framework proposed by Geithner today. Here's a little snippet of the chart; follow the links for more:

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner announced a new regulatory model for the financial system that includes regulating hedge funds for the first time. In the past, hedge funds have largely escaped government oversight in the form of regulation and have been warded off legislative attempts to regulate them by leaning on powerful friends.

During the 2008 cycle, hedge fund campaign giving skyrocketed to $16.8 million--an increase of approximately 400%. Three of the top four recipients are predictable, Barack Obama (1st - $1,316,436), Hillary Clinton (2nd - $760,400), and John McCain (4th - $605,750), all major presidential candidates. The third largest recipient of hedge fund money was Banking Committee chair Chris Dodd, receiving $705,450 from the industry. Recently, Dodd has made overtures towards regulating hedge funds and other financial groups currently outside of the regulatory framework, calling the age of "don't ask, don't tell," in the financial world, over.

The only other significant lawmaker to have received large sums from the hedge fund industry is Sen. Chuck Schumer, the long-time protector of the financial services industry and supporter hedge fund deregulation. Schumer received $344,600 from hedge funds over the course of his career.

The debate over Geithner's new regulatory framework will be intense and it would be important to keep your eyes on the powerful Senate duo of Dodd and Schumer to see what they support and what they oppose. They have some powerful friends and Dodd might need their financial support in his tought reelection race next year.

In the back-and-forth regarding who inserted the retroactive bonus immunity provision into the stimulus bill, we were repeatedly treated to on-air dodgeball acrobatics as both Sen. Chris Dodd and Treasury Secretary refused to name the Treasury staffers who could have pressed for this provision. While Geithner has owned up to his role and his support for the bonus immunity provision--on the grounds that a legal challenge could invalidate the entire stimulus bill--it would be worth our time to take a look at one member of Geithner's staff: his chief of staff. Mark Patterson is a former lobbyist for Goldman Sachs who has lobbied for pretty much every position that the administration is now openly opposing.

David Corn, in Mother Jones, dives into this revolving door drama:

On Wednesday afternoon, as President Barack Obama was leaving the White House for a town hall meeting in California, he spoke for 15 minutes to reporters about the AIG controversy. Responding to the rising rage over the $165 million or so in bonuses paid to executives at the bailed-out insurance firm, Obama noted that he was quickly developing policies to prevent future AIG-like catastrophes. And he slammed Wall Street's culture of "excess greed, excess compensation, excess risk taking." To demonstrate that he's committed to battling such greed, the president cited his work in the Senate to rein in executive compensation. Noting that he and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) had each introduced legislation on this front in 2007, Obama declared that "there were some people who attacked us, saying government has no business doing that."

One of Obama's opponents at that time was Mark Patterson, a lobbyist then for Goldman Sachs, the investment banking firm, which opposed the Frank-Obama initiative. Yet Patterson is now chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the embattled point man in the Obama administration's endeavor to undo the notorious AIG bonuses. That is, a Washington influence-peddler who worked against Obama's effort to limit excessive corporate pay is now a key member of the Obama administration team that is supposed to contain excessive compensation in the AIG case and in general.

Corn notes at the end of his post that, according to Treasury spokesmen, Patterson has recused himself from discussion regarding Goldman Sachs and issues he was previously paid to lobby. This still creates a serious conflict for Geithner, as Treasury is being partly managed by a former Goldman lobbyist. Geithner is also placed in a tough position considering that his chief of staff is limited in the areas in which he can work (supposedly).

For those who ask, didn't Obama plan on not allowing the influence of lobbyists into his administration, here's a handy chart showing the 30 individuals in his administration who were registered as lobbyists at some point during the past five years. Now not all of these persons are objectionable for their lobbying (lobbying on public interest issues is rather different than private interest), but it clearly flies in the face of a lot of remarks we heard during the campaign trail. National Journal's Julie Kosterlitz has a good article on this today as well.

Looking at the Dodd-Geithner-AIG-Stimulus secret provision quadrangle, the real problem may be who the decision makers listen to. If their top advisors are former Goldman Sachs lobbyists previously hired to lobby against tame executive compensation bills, then we can begin to assume where their positions come from.