Our friends at Change Congress have asked their members and supporters to take a survey to help them decide what they should be focused on for the coming year. And a number of questions they asked dealt with government transparency: Are earmarks fundamentally wrong or just need to be more open and transparent to the public? What’s one thing that would create a more open and transparent government? And finally, should lobbyists have a role in government? All good questions.

Japhet Els, Change Congress’ political director, lists some of the responses they have received. Regarding earmarks:, “I believe that if earmarks are going to exist, they ought to be transparent.” Another, “Nothing is 100% wrong or right. Earmarks have their use and full and timely transparency should check abuses.” We agree with these sentiments. That’s why we worked with our friends at Taxpayers for Common Sense to create Earmark Watch, where we’ve placed over 3,000 earmarks online, and ask citizens to research them.

(more…)

0 Comments

True democratic government depends on citizens being able to monitor and participate in the actions and activities of their government.  And this is not only true in our country, obviously. Just like Sunlight, My Society in the UK and VisibleGovernment.ca in Canada are applying Web 2.0 tools to facilitate openness and transparency in their governments.

Jennifer Bell, VisibleGovernment.ca’s director, learned of Change Congress‘ national movement to end corruption in Congress. Specifically, Jennifer was impressed by Change Congress asking congressional candidates to make four simple commitments: No money from lobbyists or PACs; vote to end earmarks; support reform to increase congressional transparency; support publicly-financed campaigns. So inspired, her organization has launched I Believe In Open .ca where they are asking candidates to agree to five commitments: Support reforms that increase government transparency and accountability; make campaign promises specific and measurable, and report progress on promises and their metrics at least semi-annually; publish the content of his or her daily schedule (quite similar to our Punch Clock Campaign), including meetings with lobbyists and special interest groups; support reforms allowing free access to scientific and survey data gathered by government institution; and support reforms that make it easier for Canadians to obtain government information they have a right to know.

(more…)

1 Comment

Earmarks have become a key issue in the August 26 GOP primary for Alaska’s lone U.S. House seat. Little wonder, considering the incumbent is Don Young of Coconut Road fame.  Tuesday, the local Chamber of Commerce held a forum for congressional candidates where Sean Parnell, Alaska’s lieutenant governor and a challenger to Young for the nomination, called for a cleanup of the earmark process via transparency and openness. The Club for Growth, one of the most effective keepers of the low tax and small government orthodoxy within the GOP, has endorsed Parnell. Not only that, they’re spending $350,000 to air throughout the state a powerful ad highlighting the Coconut Road earmark and calling Young “just another Washington politician.”  In 11 days Alaska Republicans will decide whether to continue or end the career of one of the top champions of the under-the-table earmark process. I wonder whether we will see more examples of this cropping up.

Hat tip: Change Congress

0 Comments

Earlier today, Lawrence Lessig spoke about Change Congress at the Free Press’ fourth annual National Conference for Media Reform, being held this year in Minneapolis. As always, Larry gave a killer speech. You can watch an earlier speech he gave at the National Press Club in March when he launched Change Congress here. Which reminds me…

Not to be missed: In the current edition of The Nation, Christopher Hayes, the magazine’s Washington editor, profiles Larry and Change Congress. It’s an extensive profile and a good read. (And I say this not only because he quotes me!) You don’t have to take my word for it, Cory Doctorow called the profile "fantastic." Hayes writes "playing David to various Goliaths (armed with a laptop as slingshot) is the defining narrative of Lessig’s career." If you’re a Lessig fan, it’s a must read.  If you’re unfamiliar with this bona fide and burgeoning cult hero, check it out…And join the revolution!

0 Comments

Speaking of Change Congress, I was reading Japhet Els’ posting about earmarks and wanted to weigh in here. (I just joined the Change Congress Google Group and will post this there, too.)

First of all, it is always easier to identify the problem than to solve it, no matter which policy arena you are playing in. But in this case, it’s even hard to identify the problem. Is it that lawmakers get to decide where to spend government money and the process is too subjective? (If not them, would a government bureaucrat know the needs of a district better?) Is it that the private financing of public elections corrupts public officials absolutely (or partially), and so we can’t trust the spending of government money to them because they simply can’t make unbiased decisions? (I kind of think the latter is a big part of the problem if not the whole of it.) Is it because some lawmakers have private investments in companies that might execute the contracts to perform the work designated by earmarks or that they make decisions to benefit their own personal holdings. (See Dennis Hastert.). It’s probably all of the above and more. (See Bill Allison’s frequent blog postings on earmarks.)

Second, proposals for reform have to be realistic. (Yes, they can be idealistic and realistic at the same time.) It is simply not realistic to propose to ban earmarks, I mean, someone has to decide which bridges and roads need to be fixed, which universities are doing great research and need to be supported, which community health clinics deserve government money, and yes too, how many new bombers we need. And while I understand that calling for an earmark ban is useful as an organizing vehicle, as policy it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Who would decide how to spend the money? And even if you suspend my disbelief, a history of reform efforts show us that such a "ban" would most likely drive the spending underground and make it even hard to track how Congress spends taxpayer money. The money will get spent.

Fundamentally, banning earmarks is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It’s a political point now being made by all those who attempt to represent themselves as populists - faux or real.

Instead, how about full and complete transparency for earmarks: who is requesting them, for what, with lots of details about costs and disclaimers about personal connections by lawmakers, along with a requirement that they all be posted for a minimum of 72 hours online in a downloadable format before they are voted on? We could easily craft such a policy. (No neither the House nor Senate went as far as what needs to be done to get real 21^st century style disclosure in their last round of reforms. Minimally this ought to be a first step.

0 Comments

As promised, here’s video of Lessig’s Sunshine Week lecture, sponsored by Sunlight and Omidyar Network:

Official Footage from National Press Club:


Sunlight Footage:

Audio from the Change Congress lecture (mp3, 34mb)

0 Comments

Larry Lessig, renowned expert in intellectual property and Sunlight Advisory Board member, will launch his new "Change Congress" project in a Sunshine Week lecture on March 20. In this lecture — sponsored by Sunlight and Omidyar Network — Lessig will describe his decision to focus his academic interests on the issue of the systemic corruption of American democracy. He will explore the ways in which our democracy is threatened by corruption and ways we, as citizens, can respond.

The event will be held at the National Press Club from 1:30 to 3 PM on March 20th, in Murrow White and Lisagor Rooms and it will be Webcast.

Space is limited so RSVP soon.

0 Comments