USA Today had a couple of dueling editorials yesterday about stocks held by lawmakers. Should they recuse themselves from votes if they hold stock in company that could be affected by legislation or oversight hearings? Or should the disclosures be made more accurate and accessible?

The first editorial poses that stock holdings create an appearance of conflict:

Lawmakers, of course, uniformly deny any connection between votes and holdings. There's no direct proof to the contrary. But, when a vote can significantly affect a stock's price, there's at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. And weak disclosure rules make it hard for voters to judge for themselves.

The rebuttal editorial states:

In the Internet age, personal financial disclosure reports should be filed electronically and be publicly available in searchable and downloadable format. The public has a right to conveniently access this information whether from judges, administrators or legislators. Online public disclosure will promote ethical behavior and educate voters when they next vote for their representative.

Both views are absolutely correct and there are ways that lawmakers could eliminate this appearance of conflict through individual and legislative action. First, as the initial editorial states, lawmakers could follow the example of Rep. Barney Frank and "confine their equity holdings to diverse mutual funds." I don't personally think that lawmakers should be suspended from trading stock, but if they do care about reducing public distrust they could move their equity holdings into something that does not create public suspicion.

Secondly, Congress needs to pass reforms to their personal financial disclosure rules. These rules do not provide timely disclosure and do not provide accurate information. When the resulting disclosure documents are released it is like finding an incomplete artifact at an archaeological dig. If anything, these incomplete rules create more suspicion about lawmakers, not less, as they were intended to do.

An initial step to fix this would be to pass the financial disclosure reforms in the Transparency in Government Act. These include simplifying the ranges used to denote the value of each asset, online disclosure, real time disclosure that is downloadable, searchable and sortable, and requiring more frequent (quarterly) disclosure for asset sales or purchases exceeding $250,000. That's a good start.

One could even argue going further and requiring lawmakers to disclose their stock trades after they make them. This could dissuade any actual improper behavior and dispel the common belief that anything lawmakers do is to enrich themselves and their friends. This both creates an accountability mechanism and is in the lawmaker's self-interest.

Today Rep. Mike Quigley introduced the Transparency in Government Act, sweeping legislation that addresses issues ranging from making Members’ reports of their personal financial information more detailed, to making lobbyists' reports more timely, to making the work of federal contractors more transparent. (We’ll link to it here as soon as it’s available online.) Sunlight applauds Rep. Quigley for taking on the challenge of shining more light on the work of Congress and the executive branch, as well on the outside forces that influence government decisions.

Rep. Quigley’s decision to create an overarching transparency bill was spurred in part because he came across Sunlight’s model transparency legislation on PublicMarkup.org.  To refresh your memory, back in 2008, Sunlight put together a comprehensive package of government transparency legislation and asked you to “mark it up,” in other words, give us your thoughts, online, on ways to improve the bill. We received hundreds of thoughtful and substantive comments, and incorporated many of them into a second version the bill. It is the bill that you helped draft that became the framework for the legislation introduced in the House of Representatives today.

Much of Congressman Quigley’s bill will look familiar to anyone who contributed to Sunlight’s bill on PublicMarkup, and, as is his prerogative, some of it will have changed. We will go through the bill in the coming days and let you know what we like, what could be improved, and what new transparency ideas warrant further exploration.

By introducing the Transparency in Government Act, Rep. Quigley has advanced the cause of transparency and accountability in government.  And, by using PublicMarkup to inform his bill, Rep. Quigley has demonstrated that good ideas, reasoned voices and modern technology can be used in concert to shape what happens on Capitol Hill.

Update: THOMAS now has the bill, H.R. 4983.  The text will be up as soon as THOMAS processes it.  For a summary, see Rep. Quigley's announcement.

Soon-to-be ranking member on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Rep. Darrell Issa issued a letter demanding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac turn over nine years of lobbying records to the committee. First of all, one would hope that this disclosure would be placed in the public record for all to see. Secondly, Issa's demand brings up an important issue: Lobbyist disclosure in its current form is inadequate for determining and dissuading undue influence seeking.

Among other things, current lobbyist disclosure does not require the disclosure of contacts made between lobbyists and congressional offices. This appears to be the type of information that Issa seeks. Why must we wait until things fall apart to go back and require disclosure (especially in the context of a partisan tit-for-tat about who caused the financial crisis)? Full and complete disclosure should be required early to prevent this kind of behavior, not used after the fact.

Similarly, disclosure should not be targeted, but should cover all lobbyists. I want to know the activities of financial services lobbyists just as much as Fannie and Freddie lobbyists. I'd especially like to know this considering that AIG and Citigroup are still funding K Street influence peddlers, while Fannie and Freddie have shuttered their lobby shops.

Here's a reasonable proposal that could prevent the abuses in the lobbying world that led us into this current mess.

It should go without saying that at Sunlight, we believe that if Congress is required to make a document or report public, it can only satisfy that mandate by putting the information online in a searchable format.  That's why we would like to see the "Statements of Expenditures" required by law to be made public by the House and Senate to be put online by each of the legislative bodies. Only then will citizens  have access to a full and detailed accounting of how Members spend the taxpayer funds that they receive to run their offices.

These behemoth reports, which weigh in at around four pounds, are published quarterly by the House and semi-annually by the Senate. They are available, "while supplies last," at the House and Senate document rooms and they can be "viewed" at Federal Depository Libraries.  But they are virtually inaccessible to a citizen wondering what her representative pays members of his staff or whether the congressman is purchasing flat screen TVs, magazine subscriptions or potted plants for the office. At a time when most American families and businesses are tightening their belts, citizens should be able to assess for themselves whether their representatives in Congress are spending taxpayer funds wisely.

Failing to make disbursement reports available online gives them an air of secrecy that is largely unwarranted given the uncontroversial content of the reports.  As Sunlight advocates in our Transparency in Government Act, a transparent 111th Congress will open up its books for review by the public, and will find that this painless endeavor helps to begin to restore the public's trust in the accountability of the institution.

The idea of far greater transparency in government affairs is spreading fast. How can you tell? Today's Washington Times carries an op-ed by one of Washington's top lawyers, Lanny Davis, that includes both a full-throated defense of the lobbying profession and an endorsement for "total transparency."

Here's a simple proposal:

Every lobbyist visiting a member of Congress or the executive branch to influence official action (the definition of lobbying) should first be required to sign in on an online, real-time computer (and thus, immediately accessible to all).

Information to be disclosed before the meeting should include the lobbyist's name, the client represented, the amount paid by month or year for lobbying, the specific purpose of the meeting, the position to be taken by the lobbyist, the legislation to be discussed, the action to be requested (the "ask" or "asks," to be updated after meeting), and the amount of current and prior campaign donations made by the client, the lobbyist and relatives associated with both.

Every time, every meeting. It's as simple as that.

One of the biggest failures in lobbying transparency is the absence of any disclosure of actual meetings. The current state of transparency for lobbyists is poor. Lobbyists only have to file quarterly reports that do not detail with whom they are meeting, what they are meeting about, and what their client is seeking. Lobbyists are also only required to file semiannual reports detailing their contributions to lawmakers. All of this amounts to a less-than-satisfactory system of disclosure providing the public with an incredibly limited view into the workings of their government.

It's heartening to see that some who travel in the highest circles of Washington lawyers and lobbyists, like Lanny Davis, are backing a more robust version of transparency. For another take on real lobbyist disclosure see Sunlight's Transparency in Government Act.

In what may be considered one of the greatest feeding frenzies since the Night of Living Dead, lobbyists are working hand-in-foot to get their clients, even if they do not fit the profile, a piece of the $700 billion bank bailout pie. From plumbers to boat dealers, automakers to credit card companies, the type of companies applying for bailout bucks expands by the day.

On Monday, American Express, a credit card company, was approved to receive bailout money. You may ask yourself, "Why American Express? They don't fit the profile required under the TARP law." The New York Times, in an article detailing the lobbyist frenzy, explains the logistics of who is able to receive funds under TARP authorization:

Under the terms of the $250 billion capital purchase program announced last month, cash infusions are available to “qualifying U.S. banks, savings associations, and certain bank and savings and loan holding companies, engaged only in financial activities.”

The massive lobbying effort put forth by corporations and industry groups has led to an expansion of those included in the bailout. For others, including American Express, the best option was to have the Treasury Department reclassify them as a bank holding company, thus making them eligible. According to the New York Times, both GE Capital and GMAC, the financial arm of General Motors, are also attempting to reclassify as "a bank or savings and loan holding company."

The lobbying is intense, putting Treasury Department staffers at the front lines under extreme pressure. Some are even receiving calls from lobbyists representing clients with no interest in receiving funds, like hedge funds, who are trying to gather intelligence for trading in markets. Other companies are hiring lobbyists for the first time to get a piece of the pie.

At this moment there is no way to gauge lobbyist activity outside of the reporting of some journalists. In this "ocean of money" lobbyists operate at depths not viewable by the public. The public will not get to see how much money is being spent until the next quarterly reports are released. Even then, lobbyists are not required to list their contacts with government officials and do not need to list the specifics of what they are lobbying for. In the quest for bailout bucks, the public will never truly be able to know what is going on as more and more companies try and get a piece of the pie.

If we are going to dole out $700 billion in taxpayer money the government ought to mandate real disclosure for lobbyists.  Just as important as how the bailout bucks are spent is how the bailout bucks are acquired. Lobbyists are playing a vital role in helping all sort of corporations and organizations gain access to the bailout pie. They must disclose their activities fully if there is to be real transparency in the bailout give away.

Here's a good place to start.