With 2014 coming to close, it's time to look back at the highlights from a hearty year of deleted tweets from politicians archived on Politwoops.Continue reading
A weekly roundup of some notable deleted tweets archived by our Politwoops project.Continue reading
Lobbyists for the companies involved in the latest proposed telecomm mega-merger have been partying hard to win friends on Capitol Hill.Continue reading
Welcome to another week's review of some deleted tweets from politicians caught by the Sunlight Foundation's Politwoops project.Continue reading
As previously stated, there is no earmark moratorium. Politico reports on the joint work of Sen. Jim Inhofe, earmark fan,... View ArticleContinue reading
“I don’t have to read it, or know what’s in it. I’m going to oppose it anyways.” That’s Sen. Jim... View ArticleContinue reading
Earlier this week, the Senate passed the FY2008 Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations Bill (S.1710). Besides including $150 billion for the various departments, the bill also includes a public access mandate requiring all research funded by the National Institutes of Health be made available to other researchers and the public. The provision has been the Holy Grail of the Open Access Movement, a wide collection of scientists, researchers, universities, libraries, and organizations advocating for the funding of specific medical research. The coalition wants peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature to be made available online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. This, they believe, will be a big step in removing barriers to serious research. After all, this is research done with public dollars.
Sen. James Inhofe tried his best to sabotage the open access provision in the bill with two amendments, one eliminating it entirely and the other gutting it, as Andrew Leonard reports in Salon. Why, you might ask? Leonard says it's no coincidence that in this election cycle the senator has received over $13,000 from one of the largest for-profit publishers of scientific research in the world. The company, Reed-Elsevier, spent a total of $3,380,000 on lobbying in the United States in 2006. Inhofe was the largest recipient of Reed-Elsevier PAC money in 2006.Continue reading