Making Government Transparent and Accountable
The Sunlight Foundation uses cutting-edge technology and ideas to make government transparent and accountable. Underlying all of our efforts is a fundamental belief that increased transparency will improve the public's confidence in government
The Sunlight Foundation Blog
-
72 Hours for Defense Appropriation Bill
Last week, Congress spent $1.1 trillion tax dollars by combining six pieces of appropriations (“spending”) legislation into one 1,000+ page “minibus” bill and passing it with almost no public disclosure or debate. In fact, the bill was available to the public online for less than 24 hours.
Before December 18th, Congress will be taking up the last remaining 2010 appropriations bill: Defense. If history is any lesson, Congress will likely try to cram different pieces of legislation into this final bill, and these new bills will be those that were unable to pass previously on their own. If the new bills are included in the Defense appropriation bill at the last minute, the public won’t know what’s going on until after the bill is passed.
It’s imperative that we have the ability to read the bill online not only before it’s passed, but before it’s debated, so we can call our representatives while there’s still time to have an impact on what they spend our money on.
The craziest part of this whole thing (Capitol Hill finds these things to be “normal”) is that the legislation Congress will try to insert may not have anything to do with defense. Raising the nation’s debt limit and various health care reforms are two possible inclusions. By “drafting” behind the Defense bill their chance of passing Congress increases. (Continue reading…)
-
Ensuring 72 Hours for Remaining Spending Bills
UPDATE (12/10): Before we could do so much as send an email asking for your support, the bill has passed by a vote of 221-202. It is a 1,000+ page piece of legislation that contains more than $1.1 trillion in spending for six of the largest federal agencies in the country, plus Medicare and Medicaid. Unbelievable.
Next up is the Defense Appropriations bill. I hope they get it right.
UPDATE (12/9): A House-Senate Committee has indeed combined six of the seven remaining appropriations bills into one omnibus bill – using the Transportation appropriation (HR 3288) as the vehicle and leaving out Defense (HR 3326) – which appropriates approximately $446.8 billion for FY 2010. We just finished downloading it. It’s very big.
Making sure the bill is online for at least 72 hours before debate seems eminently reasonable for a half trillion dollar piece of legislation, and is a requirement we know Congress is completely capable of fulfilling.
________
It’s looking extremely likely that Congress will take up debate of six massive appropriations (read: “spending”) bills this week by combining them into one big omnibus bill and trying to pass them all at once before December 18th.
Assuming this scenario does indeed come to pass, it’s imperative that the House and Senate allow members of Congress, the media, and the public the necessary time to understand how our money is to be spent by putting the entire omnibus bill online for at least 72 hours before it’s debated.
-
Earmark My Words
What do top earmarkers talk about in Congress? Does our money go where their mouths are?
In the case of the top ten earmarkers for FY 2008, the top words they used from 2007-2008 (110th Congress) do often align with their duties in either the Appropriations Committee or in bringing home the bacon to their home state. Six of the top ten use appropriations-related language in their top words and three use their state’s name in their top words.
The top ten earmarkers for FY 2008 were, in descending order with top word in parentheses, Rep. John Murtha (Billion), Rep. Jerry Lewis (Appropriations), Rep. C.W. “Bill” Young (Defense), Rep. Pete Visclosky (Indiana), Rep. David Obey (Billion), Rep. Norm Dicks (Million), Rep. Marcy Kaptur (Trade), Rep. Harold Rogers (Kentucky), Rep. Ike Skelton (Military), Rep. Chet Edwards (Veterans). Only one of these lawmakers (Rep. Skelton) is not on the House Appropriations Committee.
Three of these lawmakers — Reps. Lewis, Murtha and Visclosky — are either under federal investigation or have been mentioned in connection to an investigation in relation to their earmarking practices.
Check out the following word cloud visualization to see what these earmarking lawmakers are talking about. Below the visualization is a list of the Appropriations committee assignment for the nine lawmakers on the committee.
Appropriations Committee Assignments Rep. John Murtha Chairman, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Rep. Jerry Lewis Ranking Member, House Appropriations Committee Rep. C.W. “Bill” Young Ranking Member, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Rep. Pete Visclosky Chairman, Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee (currently surrendered position); Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Rep. David Obey Chairman, House Appropriations Committee; Chairman, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee Rep. Norm Dicks Chairman, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee; Defense Appropriations Subcommittee; Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee Rep. Marcy Kaptur Defense Appropriations Subcommittee; Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee; Transportation, HUD Appropriations Subcommittee Rep. Harold Rogers Ranking Member, Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee; Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Rep. Ike Skelton Not on Appropriations Committee Rep. Chet Edwards Chairman, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee; Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee Note: Earmark data comes via Taxpayer.net. Word data comes from CapitolWords.org. Only House lawmakers were used due to less than stellar earmark disclosure by the Senate. And thanks again to Kerry Mitchell for the visuals.
-
The Rule of Rules
If you’ve been following the Real Time Investigations hunt for House lawmaker earmark disclosures you probably already know that many lawmakers did not post their earmark requests online by the required deadline. Well, don’t you worry, they won’t be punished for that (as they are supposed to be under the new rules). According to the Hill:
The House Appropriations Committee will likely give a pass to the dozens of members who missed the panel’s deadline for posting their earmark requests on the Internet.
The decision not to punish members will avert nasty confrontations, but raises questions about how Democratic leaders will enforce their new earmark requirements.
Lawmakers had until April 4 to submit and disclose earmark requests; a deadline that dozens missed. Lawmakers who failed to disclose by this date were supposed to have their requests rejected. Instead, these tardy lawmakers are getting a pass.
So much for the rule of Rules.
-
Sign the Petition to ReadTheBill.org
If you knew where to look, you might have been able to find the massive FY 09 Omnibus Appropriations bill that was passed by the House yesterday. (Check here.) It was posted online for about 48 hours before it was debated. But is that really enough time for consideration of a bill that the House passed — spending some $410 billion of our money? And here’s the rub: It’s hard to imagine but posting it online for 48 hours was actually good news.
Because the bad news is that doesn’t always happen. The $789 billion Stimulus Bill, various Bailout Bills, bills restricting civil rights, bills expanding government surveillance of U.S. citizens and bills establishing safety requirements for medical devices all have been rushed through Congress in a matter of hours. Bottom line: Members of Congress vote without really knowing what they are voting on. Members of the public rarely have an opportunity for meaningful input into pending legislation.
Today, the Sunlight Foundation announces an initiative to make sure everyone has the chance to Read the Bill. ReadtheBill.org calls for legislation to be publicly available online for 72 hours before debate begins. Check it out, and sign the petition demanding your representatives Read the Bill.
ReadtheBill.org is an effort to create a more transparent government by bringing together a bipartisan collection of individuals and groups, luminaries and every day people to support and promote this commonsense idea. Instituting a 72 Hour Rule will give lawmakers and citizens alike an opportunity to consider and debate bills with full knowledge and consideration of the implications of the legislation, and with considered feedback from the public. It will also do away with the disparity and uncertainty that makes some bills available while others are cloaked in secrecy.
We like to think it might result in better legislation.
The founding fathers intended that the United States Congress be the most deliberative body of its kind. But it is axiomatic that a bill that no one has read cannot be meaningfully discussed or debated in Congress. The founding fathers also created a representative democracy. And so it follows that our elected legislators can’t adequately represent their constituents’ views if their constituents don’t have the chance to weigh in on a bill because they have never seen it.
ReadTheBill.org is nothing short of an effort to give Congress the chance to be a truly deliberative and representative democratic institution.
-
PMA Group Investigation
After a series of articles noting the November FBI raid of the offices of the PMA Group, a Washington lobby shop tightly connected to House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chair John Murtha, the New York Times reveals that a prominent lobbyist at PMA is under investigation for funneling fraudulent campaign contributions to Rep. Murtha and other lawmakers. That “prominent lobbyist” is former Murtha staffer and lead PMA lobbyist Paul Magliocchetti and those other lawmakers are likely Reps. Pete Visclosky and James Moran.
This marks the fourth major earmarking investigation launched against top appropriators in Congress, with many more related scandals along the way. The first large investigation netted the most extreme case of quid pro quo, Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham. Cunningham was found guilty of corruption for trading earmarks to defense contractors in exchange for a variety of items including a yacht, an 1850 Louis Phillipe commode, and prostitutes. The next two investigations were of the more common variety, the typical tightrope walk of lobbyists selling earmarks by navigating that fine line between serving the public interest and quid pro quo. Appropriators and lobbyists have practiced this walk for many years, and like political Phillipe Petit’s, they rarely fall. The investigations begun between 2005 and 2006 into Reps. Alan Mollohan and Jerry Lewis, both Appropriations Committee members, remain unresolved. Similar controversies have arisen around Reps. Don Young, Charles Rangel, and Curt Weldon (defeated for election in 2006) and former Sen. Ted Stevens (defeated in 2008).
The lack of resolution in these cases bodes well for the staying power of the lawmakers who appear likely to get caught up in this scandal, but it doesn’t look great for Congress’ means of appropriating money. Since the earmarking phenomenon exploded into these series of investigations (and other scandals), it has become clear that lawmakers and lobbyists have been playing a game that borders on, and often crosses into, corruption of a public office.
Robert Kaiser’s new book So Damn Much Money lays out the history of the lobbyist role in the creation of the system of directed spending that we call earmarking. One key point that comes out of Kaiser’s book is that this quid pro quo tightrope walk existed from the get-go. Earmarking was always a precarious game of greying ethical, and legal, boundaries. With the revelation of the investigation of PMA Group, a major earmark player, and their possible involvement with three long term, major appropriators, the legal system appears to have caught up with the tightrope walk.
As noted above, those under investigation, or convicted, for earmarking abuses are all long term, powerful Appropriations Committee members. Below is a chart of these members and others who face questions about their earmarking (let me know who I missed in the comments): (Continue reading…)
-
Inouye, Obey Promise Earmark Reforms
Roll Call is reporting that Rep. David Obey and Sen. Daniel Inouye, the chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, have agreed to a number of reforms of the earmarking process. According to Roll Call, all earmark requests will be posted online — “starting with the fiscal 2010 appropriations bills, when Members make their earmark requests, they will be required to post the requests on their Web sites explaining the purpose of the earmark and why it is a valuable use of taxpayer funds.”
This is okay as far as it goes, and in improvement (currently earmark requests don’t have to be disclosed at all), but why these requests can’t be centralized in a searchable, sortable, downloadable database rather than spread across 535 member sites is a bit of a mystery.
Roll Call also says tables of approved earmarks will be available before bills are approved by committees (right now you have to wait until the committee approves the bill), and that spending on earmarks would be limited to one percent of discretionary spending–about $10 billion a year.
-
No Time to Read the Bill
Noted curmudgeon David Obey, chair of the House Appropriations Committee, yesterday issued a disobliging statement towards the cause of transparency. In heralding his work in crafting a 357-page appropriations super-package in secret Obey launched his defense to Bloomberg, “You’re damn right it has [been done in secret] because if it’s done in the public it would never get done.”
Were the bill done in an open process, colleagues may waste time “pontificating.” Perhaps, they may also consider “reading,” or “understanding,” this $600 billion bill. Lawmakers may even consider “knowing what they’re voting on.” But, of course, who are the elected representatives of government to decide how $600 billion is allocated? They should just follow the dictates of their party leadership on how to vote.
Of course, as the Wisonsinite Obey waved his paw at the notion of openness the Rules Committee met to approve the bill. Not seen by many lawmakers, the bill reported out of the Committee at 7:11 pm last night. And guess what’s on the suspension calendar for voting today? That’s right! Obey’s 357-page, $600 billion appropriations bill.
Ready those stopwatchs and start reading … now. Can you finish this bill before it’s time to vote? Say, 5 o’clock.
-
The Last Line of Defense
Sen. Ted Stevens has served as senator from Alaska for most of his life and nearly all of the state’s existence. Stevens greatest accomplishments have been as a patronage chief; bringing home federal dollars for Alaska and protecting and expanding the extraction industries in the state, particularly the oil industry. In many ways, Stevens is Alaska. It comes as no surprise that Stevens would run his current reelection campaign on a message that says, “Without Ted, we’re toast.”
As some have noted already, Stevens – a “patronage-distributing warlord” – may be a dying breed of politician. There are others who still exclusively practice this kind of politics, most notably Alaska’s lone representative Don Young, but few to the degree that Stevens has over the years. Stevens’ undying support for earmarking and the oil industry may have brought on investigative scrutiny and, ultimately, an indictment. But they also appear to have muddled the water in the investigation, prompting prosecutors to charge Stevens with seemingly lesser felonies – for now. (Continue reading…)
-
Appropriators Want to Hog Transportation Spending Documents
Call it the Opaqueness in Government Act. A provision slipped into H.R. 3074 of the Transportation/Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill would bar the Department of Transportation from "using any funds from this Act to provide a congressional budget spending any delay public access to the budget justifications–which provide specific descriptions of and reasons to spend taxpayer money on specific projects–for several months after they’re released. Members of the Appropriations Committee, by contrast, would get the documents right away.
In other words, congressional appropriators are saying, "Now we see it, now you don’t." Well, it’s not as if average citizens across the country have much of an interest in finding out if adequate funds will be available to maintain the roads and bridges, airports and so on in their own districts… Some more background on the provision is available here.
Meanwhile, the Office of Management and Budget put out a press release (that I can’t seem to find on their site yet) saying that President Bush would veto the bill. Among the reasons cited:
This bill includes nearly all earmarks in report language, and does not cut the cost and number of earmarks by at least half. The bill also contains more than 2,000 earmarks for, among other things, museums, zoos, gardens, gymnasiums, and golf courses, and diverts funds from such priority purposes as housing, low-income families, bridge repairs, and highways. Congressional earmarks divert Federal taxpayer funds to localities without the benefit of a merit-based process, resulting in fewer resources for national priorities or unwarranted spending above fiscally-responsible levels.
Though it’s not tops on their list of reasons to oppose the bill, Christin T. Baker, the Associate Director for Communications at OMB, says that they’re "very concerned this bill takes steps to roll back transparency." Last February, the administration made the budget justifications available to the public soon after it released the President’s budget–you can view Transportation’s 2008 documents here–in prior years, members of the appropriations committee enjoyed a monopoly on that information. Apparently, they prefer the public not to know what they were up to, and want to go back to the old system.
