Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) is the only Senator on our list who will not respond to queries about the anonymous blocking of S.223, the Senate campaign finance electronic filing bill. Why won't Sen. Gregg answer the question or return our phone calls? If you still want to call and find out give Gregg's office a ring at (202) 224-3324 and ask if he is has ever placed a hold or made an objection to S.223. You can send your findings on this comment form. Meanwhile, we'll be waiting here for an answer to our question. Who's blocking S.223? Check out our complete page on the search for the secret Senator at this page on our website.
Continue readingWhile we’re waiting…
...to hear final, definitive word on the identity of the secret holder, let's take a moment to note that two members of the House are using their Web sites to provide greater transparency. Rep. Darrell Issa, the California Republican who already was among the top scorers on our Web Site investigation, has taken the unprecedented step of publishing his personal financial disclosure form online. Issa says, "Although members are not required to publish their annual financial disclosures on their Web sites, I have chosen to do so in the interest of making these important public records readily accessible." He's the first to do so; here's hoping he sets a trend.
Continue readingGregg.
Updated to reflect Kyl's denial.
Is it 
OR 
?
Jon Kyl - (202) 224-4521 Judd Gregg - (202) 224-3324
Use this comment form to tell us what you find.
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) refuses to tell his constituents if they are anonymously blocking the non-controversial electronic filing bill, S.223. Why won't Judd Gregg come clean and either admit or deny? The only assumption to be made is that Gregg is blocking the bill. It's a shame that Kyl and Gregg have to hide in his office behind staff assistants who know little of what is going on. Come out in the open and answer the question: are you blocking S.223?
Selling SSNs
Via the excellent IEC Journal comes this Government Executive story detailing the indictment of a former Social Security Administration worker who allegedly was paid $20 for each "identity" she pilfered, including Social Security numbers and other information sufficient to get credit cards.
Anu's story last Friday revealed an inadvertent release of personal information; it's a little frightening to think that a civil servant might have been purposely selling it -- and at such a low price.
Continue readingSenator Alexander Doesn’t Know
I've been out of Washington for the day and when I returned I found the following email from a former colleague who now does press for Sen. Lamar Alexander:
I ran across your call to arms on the anonymous hold on the senate electronic filing bill, and wanted to let you know that we really honestly have no idea who's behind it. The rules (both parties) on this kind of thing are complicated and not necessarily formal, but basically my boss just happened to be standing there when the floor staff needed an R senator to formally register an objection that was already filed. This is SOP, happens all the time, has for decades. It's why both parties always make sure to have at least one of their members on the floor whenever we're in session. The only people who actually know the holder's name are the floor staff and your old nemesis, McConnell. And, of course, Sen. Luddite him or herself, whoever it is.
Continue reading
Ironically, Alexander supported the bill in Rules and will happily vote for it on the floor. So you can have your members call us if you like, but we're already on your side, and couldn't tattle even if we wanted to (it would be frowned upon in the conference as a breach of senate protocol, of course). Just thought you'd want to know so you can focus your pressure more usefully.
“The Senate is acknowledging that we’re in an Internet age”
I just had a call from Howard Gantman in Sen. Dianne Feinstein's office (for the record, I had forgotten that I told their press office I wanted to hear by today or tomorrow, so of course it's not Gantman's fault for not getting back to me before I posted this item a short while ago--it's mine). I asked about the option of putting S. 223 on the calendar -- Gantman pointed to Sen. Russ Feingold's remarks which he said do a fine job of describing the difficulties of going that route -- you need 60 votes for cloture, then the bill is open for debate and amendment in what is a very crowded Senate schedule, and added that, "The only way this bill can make it through is as a stand alone bill."
Continue readingTaking a Criticism Seriously
We don't have an answer yet (Paul and I both made some calls to some Democratic offices on the subject--I called the offices of Sen. Harry' Reid and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, while Paul called Sen. Russ Feingold's office), but we did take seriously Robert Bluey's suggestion that in addition to playing phone tag with the staffers of Republican Senators, we also call Reid's office to find out if the Majority Leader would put the bill on the legislative calendar as an alternative to last week's thwarted attempt to get unanimous consent to consider the bill. There's more than one path for a worthy transparency bill to get through the Senate, and if anonymous Senators close off one, it's worth asking whether there's a "plan B."
Continue readingKyl or Gregg? Who is it?
We've narrowed our list down to three Senators: Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH). Our callers have been vigorously calling these offices to try and track down the Senator anonymously blocking Sen. Russ Feingold's electronic filing bill. We may be ready to cross Sen. Gregg's name off the list as we have received a few responses from callers like this one from Sunlight caller PH: "In Sen. Gregg's office, staff memember "Tim" said, to my knowledge Sen. Gregg did not place the secret hold on S. 223." Sen. Gregg is still a suspect. Sen. Vitter's office appears to have been deluged with calls over this as the press secretary's mailbox is completely full with calls about the blocked bill.[Vitter says "NO" - PB]
Sen. Kyl's office appears to be the most evasive with staffers saying things like, "it's a secret hold, so it's a secret," and, "we have no public statement to make." Another caller to Kyl's office noted that the staffer said that Sen. Feingold knows and that we should ask him. Feingold, however, denies having been told who the Senator is in this blog post. Keep the pressure on! Use this comment form to notify us of your interactions with staff and your findings.
Continue readingFinish the Job. 3 Senators Remain.
This post has been updated to reflect corrections made by the offices of Sens. Thad Cochran and Jim DeMint. - PB.
There are only 3 Senators who refuse to state if they have a hold or an objection to S. 223, the campaign finance electronic filing bill. Let’s finish the job and call their offices. There is no reason remaining for any Senator who does not have a hold or objection on this bill to continue to remain silent. Either admit or deny. The 3 Senators' contact info is below. Use this contact form to let us know what you find. If you come across any problems or statements like “There is no hold” here are some pointers to take into account:
- The office of Sen.
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)John Ensign (R-NV) [Ensign not Kyl. - PB] has repeatedly told us that the Republican policy for secret holds is to reveal the culprit after 72 hours. By my count it has been way past 72 hours since the hold went into effect. - If the Senator who placed a hold on the bill by making an objection seriously wanted to review the bill they have now had an entire week to review the bill. It only says one thing: Senators, all of whom already use the software necessary to do so, will file their campaign finance reports electronically.
Finish the job and call these remaining 3 Senators now!
Continue readingThe Story from OMB Watch’s Point of View
Yesterday, we told you (and the New York Times published a longer article) that USDA published the Social Security numbers of individuals who receive federal aid in a publicly available online database of government grants. That information was inadvertantly pick up in a database that we funded -- FedSpending.org. The database, which details government grants and contracts in a user friendly way was developed by OMB Watch. It's a hugely popular database -- during the month of March, there were roughly 1 million searches made. (That's not visitors or hits, that's 1 million people looking up stuff.)
Continue reading
59063
