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
-
Legislation Intended to Respond to Citizens United
We have been busy thinking through our response to the Citizens United decision, an issue on the minds of people as diverse as President Obama and Jon Stewart. I thought it would be interesting to identify legislative proposals introduced in Congress since January 20th on this topic. Here’s what we found:
- Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting corporations and labor organizations from using operating funds for advertisements in connection with any campaign for election for Federal office. H.J. Res 68
- To require the approval of a majority of a public company’s shareholders for any expenditure by that company to influence public opinion on matters not related to the company’s products or services. HR 4487
- To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to apply the ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic corporations in which foreign principals have an ownership interest. HR 4510
- To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit corporations which employ or retain registered lobbyists from making expenditures or disbursements for electioneering communications under such Act, and for other purposes. HR 4511
- To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to apply the ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic corporations which are owned or controlled by foreign principals, to increase the civil penalties applicable to foreign nationals who violate the ban, and for other purposes. HR 4517
- To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to apply the ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic corporations which are owned or controlled by foreign principals. HR 4522
- To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to apply the ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic corporations whose shareholders include any foreign principals. HR 4523
- A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to apply the ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic corporation which are owned or controlled by foreign principals. S 2954
Updated to include Jan 27-29:
- To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require certain campaign-related communications paid for by a corporation or labor organization to include a statement identifying the chief executive officer of the corporation or the president of the labor organization, and for other purposes. HR 4527
- To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require the express authorization of a majority of shareholders of a public company for certain political expenditures by that company, and for other purposes. HR 4537
- To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to extend the ban on election activity by foreign nationals to election activity by domestic corporations which are subsidiaries of foreign principals. HR 4540
- To prohibit entities from using Federal funds to contribute to political campaigns or participate in lobbying activities. HR 4550
- A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to protect Federal, State, and local elections from the influence of foreign nationals. S 2959
More information on policy responses to CU (and perhaps an updated list of legislation) is available here.
-
The Little Things We Take For Granted
So, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer announced that they were going to place the final health care bill online for 72 hours prior to consideration yesterday. Where did they decide to do this? Twitter. And no one raises a hackle at all. It’s just accepted that this is a valid announcement of an important transparency policy. What better way to demonstrate how far Congress has come in terms of social media use and transparency than to have the Speaker of the House announce a transparency policy on a widely-used social media site.
It wasn’t too long ago that lawmakers weren’t even allowed to officially use Twitter, let alone any social media site, to communicate with everyone else. The Sunlight Foundation was at the forefront of changing that policy starting in 2007 and culminating in rules changes in 2008. John Wonderlich summed this all up way back when:
In May of 2007, the Sunlight Foundation released the Open House Project report, which included an entire chapter on the issue of Franking Reform. That chapter, prepared by David All and Paul Blumental, has guided our advocacy and discussions of web use restrictions since then.
Those discussions simmered until earlier this summer, when tensions between Members of the Franking Commission briefly escalated (the part of the Committee on House Administration that handles Web restrictions). This summer’s discussion caught some media attention, and unsettled some web-savvy Representatives, and ultimately engaged both parties’ leaders in the House.
The Sunlight Foundation capitalized on the chaos, creating the first twitter-based petition in the site letourcongresstweet.org, which amassed twitter-based signatures, and displayed vigorous support for updated rules from online communities across the political spectrum.
While House officials maneuvered publicly, the Senate passed similar reforms with a bit less fanfare. As recently as last week, agreement looked unlikely from the House committee, with Roll Call reporting that an attempt at negotiations ended in “an emotionally charged hearing and a breakdown in negotiations.”
That’s why we were suprised and delighted to get word from the Committee on House Administration that a new agreement had been reached. This measure wasn’t just a slight rewrite, however. The new guidelines represent an enormous change, one which has new media staff from both parties glowing.
And now we just take for granted that serious policies are announced over Twitter. Personally, I think that is awesome.
-
Pelosi & Hoyer Say Final Health Care Bill To Be Online For 72 Hours
Last week, Jake wrote that “it is utterly imperative that the final version of the bill be online for the public to view for at least 72 hours.” The House Majority just announced that they will do just that (via #HealthReformNow):
Pelosi and Hoyer say final health reform bill will be online for 72 hours before House vote so Members and Americans can review #hcr
This is a great development and another big win for those who have called for the bill to be available to the public for 72 hours throughout this whole process. The Sunlight Foundation has called for the health care bill to be available to the public for 72 hours at each point that versions have come to the floor. In each of these instances the majority has acquiesced and posted each version, from the House bill to the Senate bill, for at least 72 hours prior to consideration. Those of you who have signed the Read the Bill petition and put the pressure on Congress to be this transparent have been vital in ensuring that we have access to this major bill before lawmakers consider, debate and vote on it.
Earlier this week, Ellen explained the importance of the 72 hour requirement:
Think of posting something on line for 3 days as a ‘safety valve’ – a final chance for citizens, media, lawmakers and lobbyists alike to look at the whole package giving everyone one last opportunity to raise questions and concerns about the bill. If readers are in an advocacy mode they have time to mobilize others in support or opposition, and/or take action in whatever form they see fit.
There is no measure more important to debate in the open than health care, and this is a moment when we all need to be champions for public, online disclosure and engage with our government. With 72 hours, the buck can actually stop with citizens the way our Founders intended. We know that Congress do it because congressional leadership has already done so at other critical points in this debate.
Of course, we still need to make sure that this promise is kept and that won’t be done until the bill has been online for 72 hours and then brought to the floor. Let’s keep it up.
-
Turning Gruber’s Disclosure Failure Into A Future Disclosure Policy
Sen. Charles Grassley is diving into the Jonathan Gruber scandal by asking the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “disclose federal contracts of individuals invited to testify before Congress on healthcare reform.” I understand the political motivation behind this, but we could actually take this issue seriously. This proposal could, and should, go much further. So here’s a thought experiment and a proposal:
With some serious caveats, all witnesses before congressional committees should be required to disclose contracts, grants and subsidies, both federal and state, that they or their business receive along with any connection, through business or finance, that they have with any sitting member of the committee. Witnesses should also have to disclose whether they are a registered lobbyist and what contributions they have made to committee members. These disclosures should be made in a simple form and then disclosed on the overseeing committee’s Web site prior to the committee hearing.
Grassley’s concern comes from the case of Jonathan Gruber, a well-respected MIT professor and voice on health care reform, who was revealed to have been given a nearly $400,000 from HHS to consult on the President’s health care proposal. This, all the while, acting as a source to many journalists, appearing on television, writing in newspapers and having his research heavily cited in support of the Senate/White House health care bill. Gruber also appeared before the Senate Finance Committee on May 12, 2009 as a witness.
Gruber obviously isn’t the only one who is guilty of this kind of non-disclosure. There are likely numerous cases of executives, employees, lobbyists and experts paraded before congressional committees with some kind of undisclosed conflict of interest or connection.
In one case that went before the Ethics Committee, only to be rejected, Rep. Sam Graves invited his wife’s business associate to testify before a congressional hearing. While Graves ran this invitation by the Ethics Committee beforehand and the Ethics Committee dismissed the charges, this association and potential conflict of interest was not disclosed to the public.
It is likely that some committees already require witnesses to fill out similar forms to the ones I am proposing. These are, however, not made available to the public. Sunlight supports the online posting of all documents submitted to committees as they relate to hearings.
Now, as to the caveats for any policy resembling the one I just described. First, there would obviously be certain whistleblower protections. Second, if a conflict undermined national security, in nearly all cases, this could remain undisclosed. Third, all personal identify information — address, etc… — would not be made publicly available.
Please tell me in the comments how this could be better or rip me apart for proposing this policy.
-
Why You Need to Download the Real Time Congress App for iPhone now
As a former Capitol Hill Communications Director, I can tell you that access to real-time information on what is happening on the Hill can make or break a successful advocacy campaign. Information is power, and the Sunlight Labs new Real Time Congress App for the iPhone gives users access to instantaneous in-the-know information in the palm of your hand. By pulling together RSS and XML feeds from the party policy committees, leadership offices, news outlets, bill texts and the alphabet soup of analysts (Think CBO, OMB, CRS et al.), the coders at the Labs have created a rich and valuable user experience for anyone who is interested in what is happening in Congress.
Forgive my enthusiasm for this new app, but it really is something special and elegant. Forget the fact that the platform will be expanded and new data sources will be added and the app will be expanded. I know that I am channeling my inner Don Draper here when I say that this new app brings me home again, and by home, I mean the Longworth House Office Building.
The Real Time Congress application for iPhone will keep journalists, Hill staffers, bloggers and interested citizens up to date on what is happening in Congress, in real-time. Its ease of use and sleek design promise that end users will continue to go back to the app for unfiltered information on Congress so they can make their own informed decisions on what is happening in the Capitol.
Our goal at the Sunlight Foundation is to change the way that citizens collect information about their government, and then help them to use that information to change the way they interact with their government. This new app shows how powerful new programs and smart phones can accomplish that goal. I’m just a little jealous of my former colleagues on the hill—I kind of wish I had this when I was working over there.
We’re pretty proud of the app and it’s free to you as the user. It is worth noting, however, that it wasn’t free for us to create. It did take weeks of development, and so any contribution toward this application and all the others we hope to create in the future on your behalf is greatly appreciated.
-
Reality Check — Health Care Negotiations
To require Congress to negotiate in public is to ban certain communications among Members of Congress.
There’s a growing sense that real legislative negotiations should be public.
C-SPAN made such a call last week, and the Society of Professional Journalists has now called for public access to health care negotiations.
These two efforts follow Representative Vern Buchanan’s bill introduced in October, H.Res. 847, a sense of the House resolution calling for open health care deliberations.
While each of these requests has slightly different wording, their goal is similar — taking aim at the real sausage-making — the trading, haggling, prodding, and arguing, the consensus-making, elbow-throwing, backstabbing stuff of legislative power. Were that aspect of Congress to be public, the institution would be change significantly, to say the least. How, though, can it be required to be public? (Continue reading…)
-
The Nitty Gritty of Calling for 72 Hours for the Final Health Care Bill
As Jake wrote last week, the final version of the health care bill must be made publicly available for 72 hours prior to floor consideration. For us here at Sunlight figuring out what that exactly means has been a moderately arduous task over the past week. The legislative process to be used, “ping-pong,” is fairly confusing and, due to that, pin-pointing the final version is difficult. I’m going to try and unpack this in the best way possible here.
How exactly does this “ping-pong” process work? “Ping-pong,” like the game, envisions the two chambers sending amendments to the bill back and forth with multiple votes on amendments. Ultimately, the chambers will reach agreement and the bill will finally be considered passed.
Below is a quick summation of what that entails (for the full version please read this CRS Report): (Continue reading…)
-
Days in Session: House
Following up on Daniel’s post from last week, here’s a chart showing the days in session for the House going back to 1947. I wrote a report about this back in 2006, but it’s been lost in the ether of both my crashed PC (I’m not a PC because my PC crashed and burned) and the various Sunlight site redesigns. (Continue reading…)
-
Welcome Back, Congress
The House and Senate worked more days in 2009 than they have in any year since 1995, when the Republican party took control of both houses of Congress. This only became clear after reviewing data contained in a recently released report on congressional activity [PDF], which provides a wealth of statistics. Among the highlights:
- Last year, the Senate met for 191 days, and the House met for 159 days. Total time in session was 1,420 and 1,247 hours, respectively.
- More than 9,071 measures were introduced, of which 1,444 passed.
- Looking strictly at non-military nominations, 89% (or 3,222) nominations were confirmed; 4% (126) remain unconfirmed; and 0.4% (15) were withdrawn. Overall, the Senate received 24,951 nominations and confirmed 23,051. (Continue reading…)
-
Shifting Legislative Dynamics & Transparency
A couple of days ago I wrote about some of the potential transparency issues related to the decision by House and Senate Democrats to skip conference for the health care reform bill (see here for background on what conference is). After thinking more and more about the issue I’m inclined to believe that the issues raised with skipping conference relates more directly to a structural shift in Congress that far too many are ready to ignore. (For more on the conference committee controversy see this post by John Wonderlich.)
Ezra Klein, who has been focusing on congressional malfunctions for the past few months, points out the major shift in congressional relations and partisan behavior in recent years:
…understanding the United States Congress as an institution gripped by ideological competition is simply wrong. It’s an institution gripped by electoral competition. The political scientist Frances Lee puts this particularly clearly in her new book, “Beyond Ideology.”
“Parties,” she writes, “are institutions with members who have common political interests in winning elections and wielding power, not just coalitions of individuals with similar ideological preferences.” According to her data, senators in 2004 are 63 percent more divided along party lines than senators in 1981. It’s no coincidence that the rise in party-line voting has coincided with the ideological realignment of the parties. Now that the parties agree internally, they can focus their efforts on winning power. (Continue reading…)
