From OMB Watch:
Popular thinking tells us that for any trend, fad or heavily pursued activity, the pendulum will eventually swing back the other way. As we approach the 2008 elections, this may well be the case for government transparency, which, after years of increasing government secrecy, appears to be getting greater attention than ever before.
Elections often seem driven by the hottest or "sexiest" issues of the moment, too often involving more rhetoric and sensationalism than substantive issues of government policy. Most years, government transparency is considered far too dull an issue about the mundane day-to-day operations of government to attract much attention from candidates or voters. But as the presidential primaries approach, there are several indications that this year could include a much higher profile for government transparency as an issue. Continue reading
And the Beat Goes On
Despite repeated denials by some reform groups, the recently passed ethics reforms are full of loopholes. USA Today and The Washington Post are now beginning to report on how "the more things change, the more they stay the same."
None of this is a great surprise, I suppose. That's why it seems to us that transparency -- 21st century style -- may do more to stop bad things from happening than all the new laws that Congress passes.
Continue reading
There is Another Way
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and a bipartisan bloc of other senators have proposed a constitutional amendment that would overturn Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 Supreme Court decision that is the superstructure of our current election law. Specifically, the court ruled that giving and spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech. I find it interesting that Schumer and company would go down this route since the likelihood for success is very small. In order to become law, the measure would have to go through a gauntlet of debates and votes, including winning two-thirds of the votes of Congress, and winning ratification of three-quarters of the states within seven years. Not very realistic.
Let me be clear. I understand the motivation to overturn Buckley. It's long been the big maple tree in the middle on the campaign finance ball field. But most reformers have accepted that it's not going away anytime soon and they've learned to play around it. One way of doing that is to create a campaign finance system that offers a voluntary system of full public financing. When the process is nearly impossible to pass a constitutional amendment, why not consider that route, which is appearing more and more achievable.
Continue readingDebatepedia
Members of high school and college debate teams and ordinary citizens alike have a remarkable new tool for research and honing their rhetorical skills. Debatepedia, a brand new project of the International Debate and Education Association, is a wiki for civil debate and reason.
The idea is that users are able to present the pros and cons of arguments made by scholars, experts, politicians, think tanks and interest and activist groups and other opinion leaders. The views of opinion leaders are usually documentable facts, and Debatepedia allows its users to arrive at a consensus in how those facts are framed. In the process, the site lets its users to present all the info necessary for a debate team member or an average citizen to craft their own position in a rational way with footnotes.
Continue readingSocial Media, Web 2.0 and the California Fires
I know this is off topic for the Sunlight Foundation -- except for how the Web is changing everything -- but our Creative Director passed along these links for how the social media is following, reporting, compiling and sharing information about the California wild fires. We're sure this is just a partial list.
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 reading
59063
