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
-
Disclose Lobbying Contacts to Reduce Distrust
It’s time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or Congress. — President Obama in his State of the Union speech.
Today, there are over 13,000 registered lobbyists working in Washington to influence our elected officials and government employees. These 13,000-plus lobbyists spent $2.5 billion on lobbying in the first three quarters of last year (fourth quarter totals are still being tallied). All of this monied influence and we have no idea who they meet with or what they discuss. Sunlight has called for the disclosure of lobbyist contacts for quite some time now. It’s both heartening and surprising to see the President call for the same thing.
Why should lobbyists disclose their contacts to the public?
President Obama explained it very well in his State of the Union last night, “We face a deficit of trust – deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years.” These “deep and corrosive doubts” stem, not only from fears of quid pro quo deals struck behind closed doors, but from the belief that there is associational bias in the lobbyist-lawmaker relationship. In a legal essay on lobbying disclosure, Anita Krishnkumar, a law professor at St. John’s University, writes, “…[T]he public perceives that lobbyists receive special face time with elected officials. Irrespective of where that face time occurs — in scheduled meetings, on a train ride, over a game of power, or on the golf course — it creates opportunities for lobbyists to persuade elected officials of their clients’ positions, opportunities that ordinary citizens do not have. In other words, the public’s concern is not just that elected officials will engage in blatant vote-selling to lobbyists, but, more subtly, that they will be partial to the causes of lobbyists’ clients because they spend a lot of time in lobbyists’ company.”
The fears that people have about the relationship between lawmakers and lobbyists can begin to be reduced by the simple disclosure of lobbyist contacts. This disclosure would allow us all to see lobbyists requesting earmarks, writing bills and distributing information. We’d also be able to track lobbyist meetings in the run-up to congressional hearings and floor votes. This would allow for the full story of the legislative process to be put into the public record.
There is no doubt that lobbying is protected by the First Amendment right to petition the government. The massive growth in the lobbying sector, however, has raised serious concerns about policy capture by monied interest groups. It’s time that Congress enact real lobbying reform by requiring the disclosure of lobbying contacts. In a post last night, Ellen Miller explained what real lobbying reform would look like, “Sunlight believes strongly that such disclosures should be made electronically, published promptly and maintained online in a downloadable, searchable, sortable format. We believe that disclosure should include all legislation and regulations discussed and all requests for specific services or government funding. Legislative contacts should be reported within 24 hours of any meeting. In addition, the requirement that contributions by registered lobbyists be reported semiannually should be amended to require contributions be reported within 24 hours of being made.”
-
Transparency Reforms on List of President’s Priorities
Copies of the SOTU speech are now circulating and there are several things in it that Sunlight is extremely happy about.
First, the President will call for the establishment of a single Congress-wide database so that all of us can track earmarks. A state-of-the-art, user-friendly online database, one that allows users to search, sort, and download machine-readable data, will spur more citizen interest and involvement — and accountability — in federal budgetary questions.
Sunlight has long advocated transparency to ensure that earmarks reflect the public interest. There is a long history of members abusing earmarks, requesting funding to build bridges to nowhere and to reward political allies, family members and even for personal enrichment. These abuses were most prevalent when there was little transparency in the process. Until 2007, members did not disclose which earmarks they requested, recipients were not named and individual earmarks were scattered throughout a dozen or more congressional committee documents that totaled hundreds of pages.
While the last two Congresses have improved earmark disclosure, it’s still impossible for a citizen to find, in a single place, all the relevant information about the projects their elected lawmakers request before votes are taken on them. What the President is requesting — a centralized database with information posted before final decisions are made — is a much-needed change.
-
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.
-
Lobbyists Help Write Senator’s Amendment
Further dispatches from the Fifth Branch of government provided by the Washington Post:
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is likely to postpone offering an amendment (pdf) next week that would bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, according to sources familiar with the matter.
…
The maneuvering comes as The Washington Post has confirmed that two Washington lobbyists, Jeffrey R. Holmstead and Roger R. Martella, Jr., helped craft the original amendment Murkowski planned to offer on the floor last fall. Both Holmstead, who heads the Environmental Strategies Group and Bracewell & Guiliani, and Martella, a partner at Sidley Austin LLP, held senior posts at EPA under the Bush administration and represents multiple clients with an interest in climate legislation pending before Congress.
As reported in McClatchy, the lobbyists are very honest about the whole thing:
“This is what lawyers in Washington do every day of the week, is to take a look,” Holmstead said. “It happens all the time on almost every piece of legislation. Before language is introduced, it is almost always shared with people on all sides of the issue.”
All the more reason for even more transparency in the interaction of lobbyists with our elected officials.
-
Lobbyists and Republicans Huddle As Financial Reform Ball Moves Down Field
Roll Call reports that House Republican leadership met with approximately 100 lobbyists to hash out strategy to defeat financial regulatory reform:
In a call to arms, House Republican leaders met with more than 100 lobbyists at the Capitol Visitors Center on Tuesday afternoon to try to fight back against financial regulatory overhaul legislation.
…
“The message was [House Financial Services Chairman Barney] Frank and the Democratic majority are ruining America, ruining capitalism, and stand up for yourselves,” said a lobbyist who attended the meeting. “They said, ‘Look, you all oppose this bill, but only a few of you have come out publicly.’”
Does anyone on Capitol Hill have any interest in releasing these types of visitor logs? Over 100 lobbyists go to meet with House Republicans. House Republicans number one-hundred ninety-eight. Not all of them were likely in this meeting, so in all likelihood we had a 1:1 or greater ratio of lobbyists to lawmakers. Who knows who these lobbyists are?
Of course, this doesn’t just apply to this particular meeting between Republicans and their allies, but also to Democratic lawmakers and their lobbyist sit-downs. The White House has a policy of releasing their visitor logs to the public. Congress should consider letting the public know what lobbyists and industry executives they are sitting down with when they discuss legislation.
-
Why Look At Former Staffers Turned Lobbyists?
Throughout this year I’ve spent quite a bit of time looking at the connections between powerful players in the health care debate and their former staffers turned health care lobbyists. The reason to highlight these connections is simple: it shows how outside organizations get the ear of key lawmakers.
You and I can’t hire a the former chief of staff to Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, but America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) can. Nor can we hire Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s former chief of staff, but a dozen health care companies can. These people have connections that worth more than gold in Washington. They have the ears of the players in Washington.
Roll Call did some more reporting on this and brought us some crucial information on these lobbyists. In particular, I’d like to point to one relationship that I’ve written about more than once. That’s Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s former chief of staff Kelly Bingel. Here’s a visualization that we created showing Lincoln’s connection to Bingel. And here’s what Roll Call has to say:
In the case of key fence-sitter Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti lobbyist Kelly Bingel is said to have the ear of her former boss. Bingel declined to be interviewed for this article, but a former colleague called her “first on the list” of the Senator’s callbacks.
…
“She’s Sen. Lincoln’s alter ego,” a former colleague said.
Organizations with a stake in legislation know that the best way to get the attention of lawmakers is to poach their most connected, most knowledgable staffers and hire them as lobbyists. The ordinary constituent can’t call up a senator and lobby them on a policy issue, but their close buddy and former employee can. Just look at this quote from the Roll Call article:
“It is helpful. We have lines of communication open,” a lobbyist and former Senate Democratic staffer said. “We have access to lay out our argument.”
Without that access you can’t get anything done.
(Most of our coverage of health care lobbyists and the revolving door can be found here.)
-
Reid Gives Nelson, Lincoln What Their Lobbyist Friends Want
TPM is reporting that Majority Leader Harry Reid is going to exclude a provision that would remove the anti-trust exemption for health insurers from the Senate health care reform bill. The move is apparently being made to grease the gears for Sen. Ben Nelson, one of three Democratic hold-outs, to vote for procedural motions in the run-up to a final vote. The provision was a huge fear of health insurers, particularly of America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and Blue Cross Blue Shield. Both of those organizations are represented by former staffers to Sen. Nelson and fellow hold-out Sen. Blanche Lincoln.
As documented in this post from two days ago, Sen. Nelson’s former legislative director now lobbies for three top health insurers: Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna and UnitedHealth Group. Sen. Lincoln’s former top health adviser Elizabeth Barnett lobbies for the same three health insurers. Kelly Bingel, Sen. Lincoln’s former chief of staff, lobbies for AHIP. Since 2005, Blue Cross Blue Shield has contributed over $80,000 to Sen. Lincoln and over $65,000 to Sen. Nelson.
Blue Cross Blue Shield is the largest provider of health insurance in both senator’s states. In Arkansas, Blue Cross holds a 75% market share and UnitedHealth Group is second with 6% market share. Blue Cross’ market share in Nebraska is 44% and UnitedHealth Group has a 25% market share. In both states, the removal of the anti-trust exemption could cause serious loss of market share for these companies.
The exclusion of the provision to remove the exemption would be a big win for these former staffers turned lobbyists. Not only did they get what their clients wanted, but the utility of their connections has been publicly touted.
The provision to remove the health insurer anti-trust exemption was included in the House bill and supported by President Barack Obama. It was used by the House and the White House as a stick to keep the health insurance industry from waging a public campaign of opposition. When the industry finally decided to publicly oppose the bill, the provision was included in the final House legislation.
-
How the Pharmaceutical Industry Bought Its Way Into Congress’ Heart
This Time article by Karen Tumulty and Michael Scherer is a must-read. Some key graphs:
[I]n the first six months of this year alone, drug and biotech companies and their trade associations spent more than $110 million — that’s about $609,000 a day — to influence lawmakers, according to figures compiled by the nonpartisan watchdog group Center for Responsive Politics. The drug industry’s legion of registered lobbyists numbers 1,228, or 2.3 for every member of Congress. And its campaign contributions to current members of Waxman’s committee have totaled $2.6 million over the past three years.
The return on that investment has been considerable, both in the House and in the Senate. “We’ve done very well,” says lobbyist Jim Greenwood, a former Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania who was a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and now heads the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). “We carried a majority of the Democrats and a majority of the Republicans in each of the committees, and by very clear margins.”
Despite promises to reign in lobbyists, Congress and the White House have done little to affect the actual situation on the ground. The Obama administration has laid the ground work for what could be a promising new system for lobbying disclosure in their limited lurches at the lobbyist complex in Washington — requiring disclosure of lobbyist contacts for bailout and stimulus funds. The current lobbyist disclosure system, however, does not seek to help the public or affect K Street, but instead is aimed at providing lawmakers with an up-to-date list of the people who keep calling their offices. Earlier this year, I wrote about the need for lobbyist contact disclosure. Here are some key graphs from that post to think about when you’re reading the Time article on pharmaceutical lobbying:
Debate over previous lobbying regulation bills (the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007) acknowledged that the disclosure by lobbyists is not only due to the potential for corrupting activity, but because they serve an important role and their existence needs to be revealed, not only to the public, but for lawmakers and officials to better understand with whom they are meeting. In fact, the general thrust of the debate during consideration of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 surrounded the need for lawmakers to be informed of who they are meeting and discussing policy. While this has served the legislative need to know the bias of a caller, it has not served the public interest nor has it helped the factions and interests that hire lobbyists to better police each other.
…The reason why the disclosure of contacts is important is not because we are worried that lobbyists are engaging in a quid-pro-quo but because of associational bias. In her legal essay, St. John’s University law professor Anita Krishnakumar explains that, “…[T]he public perceives that lobbyists receive special face time with elected officials. Irrespective of where that face time occurs — in scheduled meetings, on a train ride, over a game of power, or on the golf course — it creates opportunities for lobbyists to persuade elected officials of their clients’ positions, opportunities that ordinary citizens do not have. In other words, the public’s concern is not just that elected officials will engage in blatant vote-selling to lobbyists, but, more subtly, that they will be partial to the causes of lobbyists’ clients because they spend a lot of time in lobbyists’ company.”
…
The disclosure of lobbying contacts provides not only the public with a better view of which interests and factions are trying to influence outcomes, but it also provides a chance for those same interests and factions to view the actions of their opposition. If union officials are putting a full court press over the Employee Free Choice Act, business groups will be able to see which lawmakers they are targeting and can prepare a better response. Groups can help educate the public on which lawmakers are more supportive of their causes, or if they are in opposition. And some lawmakers, exposed by the sunlight, may find it in their interest to meet with more groups to not only provide a more bipartisan public record, but to also gain insight from a more diverse group of interests.
…
The need for a better system of lobbying disclosure, that increases registration and disclosure, is necessary to provide the public, interests and lawmakers with the information that actually matters and to provide the professional legitimacy that the lobbying industry needs.
-
Chamber of Commerce Deploys Former Government Officials to Lobby On Financial Regulation
Billed as the biggest opponent of financial regulatory reform, the US Chamber of Commerce is deploying former government officials to lobby the House Committee on Financial Services as the mark-up on legislation begins today. Fifty-five percent of lobbyists registered to lobby for the Chamber of financial regulation are former government officials, including the former chief of staff to a key committee member.According to second quarter lobbying disclosure reports, the Chamber currently employs, directly or through outside lobbying firms, thirty-four lobbyists registered to lobby on financial regulation. Nineteen of those thirty-four are former government officials. Lobbyists with prior work in government are well-suited to quickly get results as they have established relationships with important actors on Capitol Hill and in the Executive Branch.
John Michael Gonzalez is one of the nineteen former government officials hired to lobby with the Chamber of Commerce. Up until this year, Gonzalez was the chief of staff to Financial Services Committee member Melissa Bean. Bean is currently pushing to remove a provision from the Consumer Financial Protection Act that would allow states to craft stronger consumer protections. The move is backed by national banks and trade groups like the Chamber of Commerce. Bean has received over 40% of her 2009 campaign contributions from the finance, insurance and real estate sector.
Gonzalez works for the lobbying firm Peck, Madigan, Jone, & Stewart Inc. His company bio specifically hightlights his relationship with the Chamber when working for Bean, “Mr. Gonzalez successfully planned and executed a winning re-election strategy, raising $4.3 million and earning the most support of any incumbent from the US Chamber of Commerce.”
Ethics law preclude Gonzalez from lobbying Bean’s office, but do not keep him from lobbying the Financial Services Committee. This could include key committee members who may support Bean’s preemption policy. CongressDaily reports that Rep. Dennis Moore is in discussions with Rep. Mel Watt about a compromise. Both Moore and Watt have received over 45% of their 2009 campaign contributions from the finance, insurance and real estate sector.
There is little doubt that lobbyist pressure is being put on members to support Bean’s preemption policy given the preponderance of lobbyists in attendance at the committee mark-up. Gonzalez’ long-time Hill connections, especially through Bean’s office to the Financial Services Committee, will give the Chamber a boost in its lobbying effort.
Bean is being opposed by Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jon Corzine and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan. Madigan has gone so far as to tell Bean to, “put the interests of our consumers before those of the banks that led us in part to this financial crisis.”
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Chamber of Commerce has spent over $26 million so far this year on lobbying expenses. This total, if spending remains the same across quarters, will exceed their spending for 2008 and become the largest amount ever spent on lobbying by the Chamber.
-
Hidden ‘Bundles’ of Lobbyist Giving Show Full Court Press by Health Care Donors
Sunlight and the Center for Responsive Politics have teamed up on a collaborative investigative project that shows never-before-seen “contribution clusters” from outside lobbyists and their health care industry clients to key members of Congress.
We found that Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee and author of the main health care reform bill now being debated in the Senate, was one of the biggest beneficiaries of this one-two punch from lobbyists and the interests they represent. Between January 2007 and July 2009 (the period we studied), Baucus collected contributions from 37 outside lobbyists representing PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry’s chief trade association, and from 36 lobbyists who listed drug maker Amgen Inc. among their clients.
In all, 11 major health and insurance firms had their contributions to Baucus boosted through extra donations from 10 or more of their outside lobbyists. (See our visualization and the full list from CRP.)
Nor was Baucus alone—other members also received contributions from the employees, their family members and political action committees of health care firms and from the outside lobbyists that represented them. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., collected lobbyist “bundles” from 14 major health care organizations. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., actually led the list, with 22 organizations—though much of that money was directed at his presidential campaign last year. (see the full list.)
PhRMA and Amgen were the organizations with the most outside lobbyists chipping in with extra contributions. Some 32 members of Congress got money from 10 or more PhRMA lobbyists over the last two-and-a-half years. Amgen’s lobbyists did the same for 24 members.
There is no indication that the extra giving by lobbyists was part of a planned effort by the health care firms to solidify their support among key members of Congress. But whether coordinated or not, the newly-found clusters of lobbyist giving clearly illustrate the intensity of the full-court press that the industry is currently waging on Capitol Hill.
The research into the lobbyist-and-client giving was conducted by combining campaign contribution records with reports filed by lobbyists that identified their clients (read more on how we did it; full methodology here). The Center for Responsive Politics has been collecting that data for years, but this was the first time the two databases were combined to identify all cases where outside lobbyists contributed to the same members of Congress as their clients.
Overall, the research found that about 90 percent of the lobbyist donations were given by the lobbyists themselves. Another 10 percent came from members of their immediate families, mainly spouses. Interestingly, about one-third of the contributions were given not to the members’ campaign committees, but to their leadership PACs—separate funds that members control—but that get far less media scrutiny than their reelection campaigns. The leadership PACs also have higher contribution limits, enabling lobbyists to give well beyond the nominal $2,400 limit that applies to campaign committees.
To see Sunlight’s previous visualizations of health care lobbying–which also relied on data from the Center for Responsive Politics–click here.
