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 reading10 Questions for the President
TechPresident is continuing its mission to create new innovative ways to communicate and interact with presidential candidates by launching 10 Questions. Here’s how it works: you submit a question via YouTube or other video services and tag it 10questions. Then, your video will be loaded to the 10 Questions site where it will be voted on by others in the online community. The top 10 questions will be submitted to the candidates, who will then answer the questions on their campaign sites. Citizens can then vote on whether the candidates actually answered the questions. This experiment in people-powered online democracy allows regular citizens to submit questions and, more importantly, to determine which questions the candidates should answer instead of a debate moderator.
Below is our question. Don’t forget to submit one and don’t forget to vote.
Disclaimer: Micah Sifry and Andrew Rasiej are consultants for the Sunlight Foundation.
Ron Paul and Real Time Transparency
My continuing joke about Ron Paul around the Sunlight office is that he would win in a landslide if all of his supporter’s MMORPG characters were allowed to vote. (That’s massively multiplayer online role playing game for those not hip to the slang.) All jokes aside, it appears that Paul’s supporters can sure raise a lot of money. In the 3rd Quarter of this year Ron Paul raised just over $5 million putting him slightly behind a former frontrunner John McCain, who raised $6 million. Paul has now set a goal of raising $12 million in the 4th Quarter and is using his Web site to show progress in achieving that goal.
Where Howard Dean had his bat Ron Paul has his Statue of Liberty. The Statue measures the amount raised so far, updating in real time, as Paul reaches his goal of $4 million in October. While Dean and others used these kinds of visuals tools to highlight fundraising during a key period this kind of fundraising transparency has never been done in real time over an entire quarter. Paul’s Web site also shows the names and hometowns of the donors. All of this data cries for one thing and one thing only: user generated content!
Paul’s Internet supporters instantly took all of this information and created their own site, RonPaulGraphs.com, which breaks down the fundraising into tons and tons of graphs. Here’s a couple of my favorites:
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
The Open Secrets Effect
The man who really introduced me to the power of Internet (long story, see his explanation here) -- Gavin Clabaugh -- reminds us what shining a light into hidden corners of Washington, and mixing the data with a bit of technology and a handful of the Internet (with a little Miller and co-conspirator pixy dust thrown in) can do. He says that the combination may result in nothing short of the power to save democracy from itself. I promise you, Gavin was not sitting at the table when we hatched the idea for Sunlight (though his wife was my communications director when I headed the Center for Responsive Politics, so maybe there's something in the bloodline).
Continue readingGillibrand: Put IG Work Online
The House of Representatives voted on a bill to improve the way Inspectors General perform their work monitoring spending in executive branch agencies. Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand thought the bill might be improved by adding a provision on transparency. Sunlight helped her find an amendment—already part of a bill Senator McCaskill has introduced—that would require that each agency provide a link on its homepage to its IG’s homepage. The amendment also requires that IG reports are posted in a searchable, sortable, downloadable format and be available online no more than one day after the reports are made public. Another piece of the amendment provides that the IG’s website have a method by which the public can report waste, fraud or abuse in an agency.
This amendment shines light on the important work of Inspectors General and it has the potential to save taxpayer money by allowing the taxpayers themselves to report when they think an agency is engaged in wasteful or improper spending. By offering this common sense amendment, Rep. Gillibrand, who already posts her schedule, her personal financial disclosures, and her earmark requests online, can put another notch in her transparency belt. The amendment passed by voice vote, which means that her colleagues also recognized how important and non-controversial greater transparency is. Hopefully more Members of Congress will follow Ms. Gillibrand’s lead when it comes to making their own work more transparent. Ms. Gillibrand and a handful of other Members know that greater transparency builds trust with their constituents, fosters accountability, and simply improves the way our democratic institutions work.
Continue readingEnsign Refuses to Yield, Admits Working With McConnell
Sen. John Ensign continues to transparently block the electronic filing bill by refusing to back down from a ridiculous amendment requiring outside groups filing ethics complaints to reveal their funding sources. In stating his refusal to yield Ensign also admitted that he is working with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the author of this absurd amendment, to block passage of the electronic filing bill. The Hill reports, "Ensign added that he consulted with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) before deciding on his strategy, deeming the push for the amendment 'something we did together … we discussed it. I felt it was a good idea for me to do it.'" (Emphasis added.) McConnell has stated previously, including in the last few days, that he supports the electronic filing bill. It appears that he is being far less than honest.
Ensign and McConnell should do the senatorial thing and step out of the way as Sen. Bob Bennett did when he tried to offer a poison pill amendment. Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein has offered Ensign a fair hearing in her committee on his amendment in exchange for dropping his objection to electronic filing. It's time for Ensign and McConnell to stop blocking transparency legislation.
Continue readingEnsign Amendment Actually a McConnell Amendment
On Monday, S. 223, the Senate electronic filing bill was blocked for a third time, this time by Sen. John Ensign who offered an amendment that would require outside organizations filing ethics complaints to disclose their funding sources. This non-germane amendment did not originate from Ensign’s offices. Sunlight has learned that last week Democratic offices were given a Unanimous Consent agreement that would have allowed the Senate to move to S. 223 only if they agreed to take up a an amendment identical to the one introduced on Monday by Senator John Ensign. The consent agreement came from none other than the offices of Sen. Mitch McConnell, whom the Sunlight Foundation has targeted as a culprit in covering up the identity of the anonymous Senators previously blocking the bill. That the “McConnell amendment” is now being offered by Senator Ensign comes as no surprise to long time McConnell watchers, who are well aware that when it comes to reform, McConnell is often hiding behind the scenes, pulling all the strings. . The document shows that the effort to block S. 223 originates not from the offices of Sen. Ensign but from the Minority Leader’s office. So, McConnell wasn’t hiding the identity of a fellow senator, he was hiding himself!
Continue readingBeyond Earmark Reforms: Transparency in Congressional Communications
About that Washington Post story that Ellen links to immediately below, which explains that members are getting around the earmark disclosure rules through a number of means, including writing letters to the administration asking for or insisting on funding for pet projects. (Here's an example of a letter writing campaign we noted a while back--senators telling the Department of Health and Human Services exactly who should get what funds; the same post notes that Sen. Ted Stevens was able to earmark funds by giving a floor speech.) What's needed is more transparency in the interaction between members of Congress and the executive branch. Post reporters John Solomon and Jeffrery Birnbaum get at this at the very end of their piece: "[Rep. Rahm Emanuel] (who'd used letters to request funding for projects in his discritct) declined to say whether he and other lawmakers ought to disclose their private contacts with federal agencies when they seek money for projects." Why not disclose every single "private contact" (which seem to involve public money, public employees, and public policy)? Anupama, my colleague on RealTime, just received, in response to a FOIA request, three months of correspondence logs between members of Congress and the Energy Department. The logs--which offer brief summaries of the subject of the letters--stretch for 70 pages, and include requests for energy to approve loans for private companies, to support research and to pay for pet projects -- asking for $5.5 million here, $17 million there, and certainly far more elsewhere. Shouldn't all these requests from members of Congress -- whether they're for earmarks or for grants or contracts -- routinely be a matter of public record?
Continue readingTalk of Transparency on Campaign Trail
The Reason Foundation has been getting the presidential candidates to talk more about transparency on the campaign trail by asking them to sign a pledge to run a transparent administration and fully enforce the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, also known as Coburn-Obama. The FFATA requires the Office of Management and Budget to disclose all federal funding contracts, grants, and earmarks in a searchable database. The Sunlight Foundation was a part of a coalition of groups that worked to pass the bill, in particular working to out the Senator with a secret hold on the bill. So far, three candidates - Barack Obama, Ron Paul, and Sam Brownback - have signed the pledge. It's great to see transparency taking a hold as an issue in the 2008 presidential election. Hopefully, we'll hear from more candidates on the issue soon. For now, check out below for the statements made by the three pledge signees.
Continue reading
59063
