Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) mission to shutter the government in one fell swoop may be (temporarily) over, but that doesn’t mean he’s stopped trying to handcuff federal agencies in an effort to impose his own agenda on their work. His most recent effort involves preventing a Senate vote on the nomination of Tom Wheeler for FCC chairman because he wants to get Wheeler’s commitment that he will not use the FCC’s regulatory authority to require disclosure of the dark money behind political ads.
In a statement, Senator Cruz’s office announced, “Yes, the Senator is holding the nominee until he gets answers to his questions regarding Mr. Wheeler’s views on whether the FCC has the authority or intent to implement the requirements of the failed Congressional DISCLOSE Act. Mr. Wheeler had previously declined to give specific answers, but as he’s now expressed his readiness to revisit the Senator’s questions, the Senator hopes to communicate with him soon.”
Good luck to Mr. Wheeler during that conversation.
Suggestions for the OGP National Action Plan
The Obama Administration is expected to release the second version of its Open Government Partnership National Action Plan this fall. The Open Government Partnership (OGP) is the primary multi-national initiative for open government, founded in 2011. The original US plan, released on September 20, 2011, covered a lot of ground, but also suffered a lack of detail and ignored several of the most pressing transparency issues. (Both money in politics and national security went uncovered.)
Given the US’s leadership role in the world (and in OGP), and the variety of issues the country faces, we hope the US National Action Plan will demonstrate how an administration can use transparency reform to help address some of the most fundamental challenges it faces.
The following are four Sunlight priorities for the upcoming US National Action Plan, and are priorities that we’ve often repeated to White House officials in our work.
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 readingA Decade of Nondisclosure: A Brief History of the Senate’s E-Filing Failures
For more than a decade, the Senate has failed to pass no-brainer legislation requiring Senators and challengers to file campaign... View Article
Continue readingRobust 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
Calls 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 readingIn Washington, After the Oversight Must Come Reform
News that individuals at the IRS improperly targeted certain groups for scrutiny thrust DC’s “House Cleaners” into high gear. Indignant talking points have been drafted, hearings have been announced, and heads will roll. (Already, Acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller was forced to hand in his resignation). But what happens after the dust settles and is swept away? In terms of public policy about campaign finance transparency, there could be a silver lining, but only if the outrage is channeled into reform efforts. So far, hearings have been scheduled by Representatives Issa and Cummings of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (who would do well not to lose sight of the “reform” mission embedded in the name of the committee) Representatives Camp and Levin of the House Ways and Means Committee, Senators Baucus and Hatch of the Senate Finance Committee, and by Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation’s Levin and McCain—the latter the “maverick” reformer who hasn’t put his name on a significant piece of reform legislation since the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Each of those Members should acknowledge—during their hearings and beyond—that underlying the IRS actions is the real and dangerous problem of political organizations masquerading as social welfare organizations, impacting elections with hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money expenditures.
Continue reading
59063
