As my colleague Nancy Watzman reported, the Food and Drug Administration proposed strict new rules to ensure the cleanliness of food production, distribution and warehousing facilities. At the same time, the American Bakers Association announced “a major victory" because somehow they had ensured the new rules would not apply to their warehouses. To find out how and why the ABA secured an exemption to the rules was no straightforward task. A search of the lobbyist disclosure database yielded few results. Instead, it took a Freedom of Information Act request, digging through law firm websites and other sources in order to piece together who the influencers in Washington were and how they managed to ensure their clients were not subject to rules that, on the surface, would appear to be designed to impact their industry.
Continue readingSunlight Joins Effort Across the Pond as Britain Tries to Rein In Influence Buying
A heated debate over proposed lobbying legislation is underway in Great Britain, where lobbying reform legislation has been offered as a result of a scandal in which Members of the House of Lords apparently offered assistance to fake solar energy lobbyists in exchange for payment.
Prime Minister David Cameron proposed lobbying reform legislation in 2010, but it took the scandal to muster enough outrage to spawn reform efforts.
Much of the outcry over the bill is focused on provisions that would limit the amount of money third parties could spend on elections. But even more fundamentally, the bill fails to do what it set out to do—that is, shine a light on the activities of lobbyists. The bill is so poorly and narrowly crafted that it may result in less transparency than is currently provided by the UK’s voluntary (and woefully incomplete) lobbyist registry.
What Have they Got to Hide? Lawmakers Should Allow Meetings with Lobbyists to be Disclosed
Recently, my colleague Lee Drutman concluded that banks met with regulators at the Federal Reserve, Treasury and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission more than five times as often as reform-minded consumer groups in the past two years. His analysis provides a valuable tool for the media, academics and the public to better understand who is trying to shape financial industry regulations.
His conclusions, and the follow up questions that can now be asked (Did the banks get what they wanted? Are consumers’ interests being served?) are only possible because the agencies posted information about the meetings online.
Which begs the question: If the regulators can provide information about who is trying to influence the regulations they write, why doesn’t the public have access to similar information about meetings Members of Congress or their staff have with lobbyists?
Progress on Senate Electronic Filing Bill–Will it be Enough?
With no debate, minimal discussion and not even a whisper of an objection, the Senate Rules committee yesterday sent S. 375, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act, to the floor of the Senate by a voice vote. The understated proceedings reflect the nature of the legislation. The Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act is, at its core, a technical fix to an antiquated paper filing process. It's not a major change to the law that would require hours of debate. If the Senate were a rational body, the noncontroversial legislation would be enacted immediately and without fanfare. But assuming the Senate is rational is a big “if.”
Continue readingTo Combat Dark Money, States Must Focus on Disclosure
A recent story in the Huffington Post outlined state-level efforts to combat the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, even as reform... View Article
Continue readingSunlight Calls on Senators to File Campaign Finance Reports Electronically
In an open letter to Senators, the Sunlight Foundation called for all senators to file their campaign finance information electronically... View Article
Continue readingFree the Bill: It’s time for Electronic Filing Legislation to Become Law
One week from today, House and Senate candidates will file their campaign finance reports. Even this far out from the next elections, many thousands of pages documenting many millions of dollars of campaign contributions will be filed. And those reports will contain some interesting information—which donors are trying to make their mark by giving early and often; which industries are hedging their bets by donating to both parties and which are more partisan; whether there is a spike in contributions that can be tied to a particular issue or interest; and which special interest may be using the campaign finance process to gain access or influence with particular members of Congress.
Robust Lobbying Disclosure Needed to Address Advantage of the 1% of the 1%
In the 2012 election 28 percent of all disclosed political contributions came from just 31,385 people. In a nation of 313.85 million, these donors represent the 1% of the 1%, an elite class that increasingly serves as the gatekeepers of public office in the United States.
During the 2012 election cycle, a tiny percentage of lobbyists gave a combined $34.1 million in campaign contributions, putting them in elite company with the political 1% of the 1%, individuals who have given at least $12,950 each toward identifiable federal election activities. And while lobbyists’ donations made up only a small portion of the overall contributions from the political 1% of the 1%, their contributions might net the most bang for the buck. Lobbyists more often gave directly to candidates rather than to outside groups; and it is to those candidates—when they are elected—that the lobbyists turn when they need help. Shining the brightest light on lobbying activities will expose to the public where the levels of influence are and who is pulling them. Sunlight has developed a set of eight principles that form the foundation of a comprehensive lobbying disclosure regime. Continue reading
States Not Waiting for Congress to Act on Disclosure of Dark Money
This week, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman adopted bold new disclosure rules to shine a light on dark money spent on elections in New York. Effective immediately, groups that spend $10,000 or more on state and local electioneering will have to publicly disclose their contributions and expenditures on the New York Open Government website. Nonprofits registered with the state will also be required to report the percentage of their expenditures that go to federal, state and local electioneering. Last week in California, the Senate passed a version of the DISCLOSE Act. If enacted, the bill would require disclosure of donors to outside groups that run political ads. And in Montana, Republican lawmakers this week unveiled a proposal for a ballot measure that would require any entities that spend money to influence campaigns in the state to make public information about their financial supporters. Unlimited secret money has been fueling our elections to an ever-greater extent since 2010, when the Supreme Court decided in the Citizens United case that corporate money could be used to influence elections so long the spending is “independent” of candidates’ campaigns. The Court relied on the mistaken assumption that in the Internet era, such spending would be transparent, noting, “prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions.” What the Court failed to take into account was Congress’ inability to pass laws that would ensure the public had the spending information needed to hold “corporations and elected officials accountable.” Instead, at least $300 million in dark money was spent during the 2012 election cycle, while Congress continues to sputter along in its effort to create a disclosure regime.
Continue readingCalls for Reform of IRS Rules Face Resistance from Dark Money Advocates
Eight groups, including the Sunlight Foundation, sent letters to the House and Senate, urging Members of Congress to adopt legislation... View Article
Continue reading
59063
