When writing articles on legislation for the Congressional wiki I work on, Congresspedia.org, I often look around at what the various public interest groups have to say about what's in a bill and what their take on it is. Many groups write their reports so well that I'd often like to just copy and paste their whole take into the wiki, exposing their message to its many readers. Unfortunately, all to often I'm stopped in my tracks by a copyright notice at the bottom of a group's website. Many - perhaps most - public interest groups are unnecessarily hamstringing their own effectiveness and reach by using the same copyright protections that prevent Mickey Mouse knock-offs and xeroxed Harry Potter books. Our copyright laws are designed to protect profits by keeping information from being freely disseminated, but unlike Disney or Simon & Schuster, most public interest groups want their research, opinions and publications to spread, unencumbered, through the public.
The advent of the Web has infinitely expanded that potential as reports no longer have to be mail-ordered or press releases picked up by reporters to get your message out. That is, unless you copyright your materials, preventing them from finding their way into Wikipedia, blogs or the classroom. You may even be copyrighting materials without knowing it - since 1989, U.S. law assumes an implicit copyright on all published materials, regardless of whether a webpage or document has a copyright notice.
Continue readingPublic Medicare Data
(from the OHP blog)
Add another tally to the list of public conversations about federal data availability.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, part of Health and Human Services, is hosting another in their series of "Open Door Forums", to discuss Medicare Part D Data regulations. (See here for CMS's description of the new rule and its data availability implications, and here for an example of coverage of their conference call, and for conference call details.)
This is the nitty-gritty of public data availability. A new public project has created a complex and rich public data resource, detailing the ways that the federal government spends money on drugs through Medicare.
The compromise here isn't obvious. Whole scale release of the data would violate probably both beneficiary and commercial privacy, so that isn't really an option. This is, however, public data, with a very clear public benefit. A very large and new public program is generating a huge amount of new and potentially useful information about the way we use prescription drugs. CMS is struggling with how to balance privacy/commercial concerns with the public good involved in releasing the information.
Clear federal information availability guidelines would probably be helpful in cases like this, where there's an immense stake for everyone involved. Insofar as the information is public, then it should ideally be available for bulk public download and analysis, given that that arrangement doesn't violate other concerns. Negotiating a new terrain of public data benefits and pervasive data will take measured dialog and analysis (as I wrote on Friday), so it's heartening to see an agency engaged with the communities affected by their work. I wonder if there's a place for the public access community within the debate around Medicare data, although my knowledge of health issues makes opinionated involvement impossible.
For other examples of similar officially sponsored public conversations about public data, see the USPTO's Public PAIR discussions, the EPA's recent webcast, Sen. Durbin's broadband dialog, Rep. Honda's new education legislation, the development of the original e-gov act (partially done online), and the Open House Project.
Party Time: Corporations Are Picking up the Tab
On Tuesday just as the campaigns moved into the general election phase, the Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) released an analysis of the fundraising being conducted by the Democrats and Republicans for their presidential conventions in Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul. CFI estimates that corporate funds will pay for 80 percent of the $112 million combined price tag of the two conventions. How is that possible?! CFI found that both parties are using local “host committees” to raise unlimited corporate contributions to pay for the conventions and the FEC and IRS decided that it’s OK for “host committees” to spearhead the fundraising, This created a huge loophole allowing corporate money to flow to the parties.
Continue readingPolicyMap.com
PolicyMap.com launched last month. It's a very cool and fun site, especially if you're into mashing up maps with demographics...And which public policy geek isn't? It's an online mapping tool that allows you to easily research market and demographic data by geography throughout the United States - down to a census tract level. It includes literally thousands of indicators related to demographics, real estate markets, money and income, education, crime and more.
The site is a project of The Reinvestment Fund (TRF), a non-profit community development financial institution that works across the Mid-Atlantic region financing affordable housing, schools, businesses, supermarkets and other projects "that build wealth and opportunity for the people and places that need it the most." They say that they have long recognized the need for good data and analysis about neighborhoods. And through PolicyMap, they are generously sharing information they've collected over the past decade with the public.
Much of PolicyMap is free to the public. They offer subscription options for the features and proprietary data that they are not allowed to give for free. That part we don't like so much, but hey, this is worth a look.
Continue readingCurious Campaign Contribution and Vote Sponsorship Connection
Project Vote Smart Rocks
Richard Kimball wrote today to say that Project Vote Smart's Voter Self Defense "Manual" is complete. He thanked seven different people and organizations for our ideas and for helping make it happen. But in fact, it's the tens of millions of Americans who use this site who should be thanking him and Vote Smart's remarkable staff and volunteers for what they have created.
Usage of the site has exploded. It gets as many as 7 million hits a day (you read that right, that's hits per day) -- a 2300% increase over any other election year first quarter. Their estimate is that will get some 30 million hits by the election's end. Cite those stats to people who pooh-pooh American's interest in politics.
One hundred and fifty-four organizations, Clear Channel, LA Times, Gannet News Service, Dish Network among others are using their APIs to enrich their own reporting. (Sunlight modestly helped Vote Smart's able technologists in this arena.) Vote Smart aggressively developed their APIs because of the core desire to give everythin g they have to anyone might be able to use it, multiplying their work many-fold. Theory proven right.
Many kudos Vote Smart friends. Job well begun! (The job is never done...)
Continue readingLike Swimming in Molasses
We are not naïve. At Sunlight, when we learned that Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was convening a task force to address the issue of earmarks, we knew the odds of progress were slim. McConnell is an appropriator, a champion of earmarks and an ardent foe of almost every conceivable good government reform. He also has a keen political ear. So by forming a task force on earmark reform, he could arguably demonstrate action without actually moving. As "The Hill" reports here, Senator McConnell not only continues placing obstacles to moderate reform, but he is resisting a push for earmark transparency coming from within his own party.
How did McConnell undertake the issue without putting his caucus at risk of actually having to change its ways on earmarks? He appointed a working group with members on such opposite ends of the earmark spectrum odds were against success. Then he told them to come up with a unanimous recommendation. When they did that, McConnell moved the goal line again, saying he would attempt to work with the Democratic Leader to consider creating a Senate Rule the encompassed the suggestions. Even the most casual political observer wouldn't be surprised to find that those "negotiations" came to nothing.
Continue readingBig PhRMA, Disclose Thyself
The Hill reports on what appears to be a “man bites dog” story, a reversal by the pharmaceutical and medical... View Article
Continue readingTed Kennedy, Internet Pioneer
It sounds silly, but it is, in fact, true. In this month of May, fifteen years ago, Ted Kennedy became the first Senator to communicate with constituents over the Internet. Back in 1993, this was no small feat. At the time there were no congressional offices connected to the Internet. (The House launched a pilot program on June 2, 1993, hooking up seven members to an Internet network.) One dedicated staffer and the technology hubs of MIT and other top-level educational institutions made Kennedy into the first digital Senator. Here's the story (which you can read about in more detail Chris Casey's book, The Hill on the Net):
Continue readingContractor Database Shrouded from Public
The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) has long championed the establishment of a publicaly assessable contractor misconduct database that would include criminal, civil, and administrative cases in order to prevent offending private contractors from receiving contracts from the federal government. POGO has set up their own Federal Contractor Misconduct Database, listing companies with histories of misconduct such as contract fraud and environmental, ethics, and labor violations. Backing up POGO on the need for a public database are 32 like-minded organizations (including the Sunlight Foundation). U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney has introduced H.R. 3033 which would establish the database and make it publicly available. The bill passed the House last month. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) has introduced S. 2904 which mirrors the House bill.
McCaskill's bill has stalled, however. GovernmentExecutive.com reports "senators on the Armed Services and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committees -- both in the majority and minority -- would not support the bill if the database were open to the general public." The article quotes unnamed members of McCaskill's staff as saying there were two main objections to making the database public. One was concern over "administrative challenges" of a public database. Two databases would have to be created, one for governmental eyes only (which would include sensitive and private information) and one for the public. Transparency is too much work, I guess. Another concern objecting senators have is the fear of "Monday morning quarterbacking" by the public. Oh, we don't want the public second-guessing governmental decisions...Jeez.
Continue reading
59063
