by Carrie Tian, policy intern NEWS:
- Obama kicked off his Africa tour with a visit to Senegal, where an online transparency platform called Sunu2012 sprang up in time for the nation's 2012 elections and has continued to monitor the government since. (techPresident)
- The current state of disarray of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity gives a window into the collapse of the century-old coal lobby. (National Journal)
- Well before Edward Markey had officially secured his US Senate seat, Massachusetts politicians were eyeing the House seat he'd be vacating. State Sen. Kathleen Clark had started fundraising and filed her candidacy paperwork on Feb. 19, and Middlesex County Sheriff Peter Koutoujian followed suit on May 22. (Roll Call)
- Just hours after the Supreme Court struck down DOMA, political analysts were speculating on the impact of gay marriage on the national budget. Tax revenue would increase thanks to the "marriage penalty" for two income earners, but payouts for Social Security would increase. Medicaid and Medicare spending would actually decrease, as spousal assets would reduce eligibility for the means-based programs. (National Journal)
- The immigration bill's E-Verify amendment may have sailed through the Senate Judiciary Committee, but it's having a tougher time in the House, where Democrats are concerned about the lack of safeguards for mislabeled employees. (POLITICO)
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
Gay rights supporters spending big politically
Today's Supreme Court decisions, both of which heartened proponents of gay marriage, come at a time when gay donors have become formidable players in the political money game. In the 2012 election cycle, gay rights groups and individuals associated with them spent nearly $17 million on campaign contributions and other political spending at the federal and state level, according to a search on Influence Explorer. Gay rights groups also reported spending more than $3.8 million on federal lobbying over the same time period.
Most of that campaign cash--57 percent--went to state level campaigns and issues, where gay marriage ...
Continue readingWhat lobbyists in the 1 percent of the 1 percent want (Hint: a lot)
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.
Compared to other big campaign donors, lobbyists spread their money around. And because they seek access to lawmakers to push for their clients’ interests, they give more of their contributions directly to candidates as opposed to party committees and super PACs. That’s according to a new Sunlight Foundation report on the lobbyists in the “one percent of the one percent,” the rarefied group of about 31,385 well-heeled insiders that give at least $12,950 to political campaigns. So what do these lobbysits want to get done? In particular, what about ones giving the most? Of all the players in Washington’s influence business, here is a list of the 10 who gave more than anyone else in the 2012 election. Continue reading
California Crying Wolf About Cost of Public Records?
Though all appears to be quiet on the public records front in California after a proposed rollback tucked into a budget deal brought an outpouring of criticism and several political dances, the events of last week still haunt the Golden State’s citizens. And rightly so. There are still many unanswered questions about why language weakening public records laws for California cities (by allowing them to “opt out” of records act compliance) was included as part of the budget process.
The budget bill itself cites that requiring local governments to follow those provisions (versus just giving them the option) has financial implications for the state. In 2011, the Commission on State Mandates decided that the state would reimburse local governments for certain public records costs. This decision came from a voter-approved initiative that required the state to repay local governments for state-mandated measures. Perhaps this is why the legislature thought that destabilizing local-records access could be a cost-saving measure, one that simply saved the state money by ensuring that fewer records-related reimbursements have to be paid.
Is the current law really costing the state money though?
Continue reading2Day in #OpenGov 6/26/2013
by Carrie Tian, policy intern
- Sen. Rob Portman's (R-Oh.) push for a separate vote on his E-Verify amendment on the immigration bill, which seeks to prevent worker identity fraud, highlights the number of negotiations the Gang of Eight has made privately in an effort to secure as many votes as possible in the Senate this week. (POLITICO)
- Meanwhile, small business lobbyists are also raising their concerns about provisions in the immigration bill. The National Federation of Independent Business's concerns center on the creation of a Bureau of Immigration and Labor Market Research, which would be funded by the fees it collected and thus have relative independence from Congressional oversight. (Washington Post)
- A group of Austrian students filed legal complaints to various European data protection agencies. The complains could evolve into the first legal case examining the release of non-American data to the US government under EU data protection laws. (Ars Technica) Continue reading
Texas State Sen. who filibustered abortion bill also a fundraising force
The dramatic one-woman filibuster that kept Internet geeks spellbound into the wee hours of Wednesday morning and the Texas state Senate from enacting one of the most restrictive anti-abortion laws in the nation highlights the passionate -- and well-funded -- liberal streak that runs through one of the most Republican states in the union.
Continue readingAre the 1% of the 1% pulling politics in a conservative direction?
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.
The more conservative the Republican, the more dependent that Republican is likely to be on the nation's biggest individual donors, a new Sunlight Foundation analysis of campaign finance data finds. By "biggest individual donors," we are referring to a group we named “the 1% of the 1%” after the share of the U.S. population that they represent. These wealthy donors may be pulling Republicans to the political right, acting as a force for a more polarized Congress. The polarizing effect for Democrats, meanwhile, is unclear. If anything, more liberal Democrats depend a little less on 1% of the 1% donors than conservative Democrats. As we explored in our big-picture look at the 1% of the 1%, the biggest donors in American politics tend to give big sums of money because they want one party to win. Approximately 85 percent of the top individual donors in U.S. politics contributed at least 90 percent of their money to one party or the other. By contrast, less than four percent of these donors spread their money roughly equally between the two parties (a 60-40 split or less).
Figure 1.
The above figure treats all Democrats and Republicans as equivalent. In reality, both parties contain some moderates and some extremists. Some -- Ezra Klein, most prominently -- have argued that while small money exerts a polarizing tug on the parties, big money is consensus-oriented and centralizing. At the time, I responded that if big money was consensus-oriented, it was doing a terrible job of building consensus. I went further to hypothesize that big money might also be polarizing. Turns out I was more right than I knew then.
Continue reading
2Day in #OpenGov 6/25/2013
by Carrie Tian, policy intern
- The GSA is moving to "zero-based budgeting" : each division starts as if they had zero dollars and then must justify each budget request they make against the GSA's top level goals. CIO Casey Coleman hopes the policy will generate more consistent data, increase transparency, and reduce wasted effort and money. (FedScoop)
- On the morning of the Bay State's special election, a roundup of the two candidates' campaign finances: Markey leads 76-1 in energy money. Looking at funding overall is not quite as large of a blowout, though Markey has been working with millions more than Gomez. (POLITICO)
- A top aide from John Boehner's office is leaving to run the DC office of American Express. Brett Loper, Boehner's former deputy chief of staff, is the third high-ranking staff member to leave in recent months, fueling speculation that Boehner's time in Congress is drawing to a close. (The Hill)
- A slate of legislation up for consideration in Ohio's General Assembly would curtail transparency in the state. One bill would close meetings about misconduct by fiscal officers; another would allow public bodies to privately meet on economic development issues. (The Plain Dealer)
- Founders of the pro-Hillary super PACs hope that their early proliferation will discourage other candidates from entering the field, even before Clinton has announced her own candidacy. (Washington Post)
Despite ethics pledge, Obama accepted K Street money
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.
In his two runs for the White House, President Obama pledged that he would not accept money from registered lobbyists. But his campaign received donations from people who, while not registered, walk and talk an awful lot like lobbyists, including advisors who manage lobbyists. Sunlight's investigation into the political 1 percent of the 1 percent -- the donor class whose members individually contributed at least $12,950 to political campaigns in the 2012 election -- showed that many, many big donors in the influence business have contributed to the president. At least four dozen of them -- lobbyists and employees of lobbying or public relations firms -- contributed to the president in 2011 or 2012. One officially registered lobbyist even donated and unlike the other registered lobbyists who did so, his contribution was not refunded. Continue reading
59063
