In what must be the most bizarre tale of earmarking I've ever heard the Oregonian is reporting that the T-shirts purchased for Marines through a $2 million earmark have been banned because they "can melt, causing severe burns." Rep. David Wu, the member who inserted the earmark is "horrified". This information has come out due to the excellent database set up by the Seattle Times.
Wu also is "horrified" that journalists and others would connect the earmarks he distributed to the campaign contributions he received. Now perhaps, if given a huge benefit of the doubt, Wu was attempting to get a contract to a district based business to do this kind of work. You know, the typical "help out the district" work that members of Congress are supposed to do. Even if we assume that, this example clearly shows that earmarking is not an efficient way of doling out important contracts. Maybe if there was some kind of competitive bidding or review process we wouldn't have Marines getting "severe burns" from their own melting clothes.
Continue readingTelecom’s Got Some Dollars in the Fight
I've been following the issue of whether the telecommunications companies will get their desired immunity in the update to the foreign surveillance law. Last week, Bush said he would not sign any bill that did not provide retroactive immunity for them.
The House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees have so far resisted Bush's efforts to protect the telecom companies and voted down an amendment that would add telecom amnesty to the bill. The ACLU and other civil libertarian and watchdog groups have said they expect telecom companies to keep personal information private, and if they break the law, be held accountable.
Continue readingSeattle Times Creates Earmark, Political Contributions and Lobbying Database
Sunlight's Real Time Investigations' Project has done partial investigations into the connections between earmark recipients and their political contributions, but the Seattle Times has launched a database of 2007 defense earmarks for every member of Congress compared to the political contributions they received from the recipients of those earmarks. They also included how much was spent on lobbying by the recipients. (The campaign finance information only goes back six years. It's unclear what period the lobbying money covers.) You can search by lawmaker's name or by the name of a company or nonprofit that got the earmark. You can also browse lawmakers or earmark recipients by state. (Click on the corporate names for the information on how much was spent on lobbying.)
The reporters were able to tie only about half of the 2,700 earmarks in the 2007 defense spending bill to members of Congress. And they included only items Congress funded that the military did not ask for. Even so, they found some 45,000 matches.
Continue readingGetting Around the Rules
Larry Lessig Friday
Last Friday, Paul posted an interview with Larry Lessig from Danish TV. Today, I received a link to the lecture I heard him deliver at Stanford Law School just a couple of weeks ago. It’s worth devoting the time to watch this. It’s a remarkable analysis. Update: Lessig has now posted the slides.
Continue readingBig Money Still Counts
My long time colleague and friend Nancy Watzman at Public Campaign writes over at the Huffington Post that despite all the talk about netroots and a democratization of fund raising via the Internet that when it comes to campaign finance for the presidential candidates big donors still significantly dominate. In the last presidential election, it was the early money -- raised from people giving a $1,000 or more that established the front runners.
Nancy quotes a Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) study that found in the first six months of 2007, the candidates received nearly three-quarters of their funds in amounts of $1,000 or more. For Giuliani, Romney and Clinton, the figure exceeds 80 percent. When it comes to small contributions ($200 or less), Obama is raised $16.4 million, more than the rest of the Democratic field combined, as well as the entire Republican field combined. As impressive as that is, he still raised three-fifths of his funds in amounts of $1,000 or more. Overall, in the second quarter of fund raising, there was an increase of 84 percent in small contributions over first quarter totals, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).But still the small money is dwarfed by the big donors.
Continue readingAn Idea Whose Time Has Come?
Common sense tells you that true earmark reform would be popular with the American people. Politico's Patrick O'Connor highlights polling numbers that backs this up. A fresh Winston Group poll finds that 78 percent of Americans support the disclosure of earmarks. Not terribly surprising...But my question is, what's the other 22 percent thinking?
Congressional Republicans, led by Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) have been holding the Democrats feet to the fire on earmark reform. You don't have to hire a high-dollar political consultant to figure out that crusading against earmark abuse is a good issue for the GOP to regain the fiscal responsible credentials they lost during its years of congressional control.
When the Congress passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 the Senate short circuited the reform, making sure that their earmarks will not receive meaningful public scrutiny. The Senate needs to read the mood of the public and correct this stunt pronto. Newly-elected Sen. Claire McCaskill proposes that senators be required to list the details of all earmarks they propose on their Websites. This would allow the public to hold their own elected officials accountable for the way tax dollars were being spent. But I don't see that she's introduced legislation to require this yet.Continue reading
Mini-Grants
If you're a developer-type person, and you are involved in some way in making a difference in the way people interact w/Congress, then you may want to check this out...
Continue readingDisparity in Earmarks by Race
A recent Congressional Quarterly study analyzed data from Taxpayers for Common Sense and found that when it comes to earmarks there is almost a 2 to 1 difference in dollars going to the districts of white members as to those districts represented by black members. Of the $4.2 billion in earmarks included in bills passed by the House and Senate this year the average white Democrat got $12 million in special projects. Black Democrats got $6.1 million and Hispanic Dems got $5.7 million. Interestingly enough, minorities in the Democratic Caucus got less on average than the $8.7 million that the average Republican secured.
And here's an bizarre solution suggested: members of the Congressional Black Caucus have called on the House leadership to address the disparity. Rep. William Lacy Clay of St. Louis and Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) of Kansas City suggest expanding the House Appropriations Committee by two members, with both seats going to black reps.
Continue readingLocal Sunlight
Every week I climb into the depths of the local political blogosphere to find the Sunlight. I use this series to highlight local blogs that do a great job of covering local, state, and Congressional political news. This week I have highlights from
59063
