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
-
Can You Read a Bill in Under 24 Hours?
Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted on a bill that ought to offend Americans of all stripes. The culmination of a compromise with the demands made during August’s pro-drilling, Republican sit-in, the bill would end a 27-year ban on offshore drilling and revoke $18 billion in tax incentives and subsidies to the oil industry. Now it may be remarkable to some because it repeals a near three-decade long congressional policy, or because the Republicans clamoring for a vote all punched their electronic tally machine, “Nay,” but neither of those reasons make it offensive. The bill’s offensiveness is underlined by its being unremarkable.
Unremarkable because it, like too many bills, was nearly impossible to read or study prior to a final vote. The bill, H.R. 6899, clocking in at 290 pages long was introduced at 9:24 pm on September 15, 2008 and was voted out of the House Rules Committee at midnight. The final vote was held at 10:05 on September 16, 2008. That left 24.5 hours for lawmakers, staff, watchdogs, and concerned citizens to read the bill, or if one counts from the time the bill reported out of Rules, 22 hours.
That’s 290 pages of crucially important legislation to read, digest, and understand in one day. If a reader can plow through text at one-page-per-minute the bill would take approximately 4.8 hours to read, which makes it conceivable that someone could have read the bill. (Legislation doesn’t exactly fly by as fast as a novel, like Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, which clocks in at 287 pages.) Parsing and understanding legislation must take a longer amount of time. Additionally, calculations should factor in the basic human need for sleep.
Lawmakers and citizens should not accept that bills will be introduced that no one can or will read. This Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act goes down in the pantheon of bills released with not enough time to read them. Lawmakers should require that all bills be available online for public consumption for 72 hours prior to a vote.
It is as though congressional leaders do not expect the individual offices of our representatives to consult their own gray matter before casting a vote. Instead, lawmakers are positioned in a way that predetermines the passage of a particular bill prior to its introduction.
The bill’s sponsor Rep. Nick Rahall defended the bill’s rushed passage by explaining that there had been “extensive, wide-ranging negotiations that have helped produce this bill.” None of these negotiations were held in public and the bill went from introduction to a vote as if one of its sections contained a faster-than-light drive. So forgive me if I don’t take Rahall’s word on this.
This is a simple element of transparency: bills should not be pushed through without proper time to examine and consult. Citizens should be given time to provide their opinions to their representatives prior to a vote.
-
Dept. of Interior Oil Scandal
Yesterday, the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior released multiple reports revealing widespread corruption in the Mineral Management Services agency, which handles mineral extraction, leases, and royalties for the Department of the Interior. The allegations show employees receiving illegal gifts, graft, filing false statements on ethics forms, using illegal drugs, and having sex with both subordinates in the agency and with agents of oil and gas companies with business before the agency.
Here are some of the allegations:
Lucy Denett, former associate director of minerals revenue management: accused of steering a contract to one of her aides after he retired.
Gregory Smith, former director of the royalty-in-kind program: accused of doing outside consulting work that included using his position to help the company paying him gain access to clients doing work with the royalty-in-kind program; billing Mineral Management Services for trips made in conjunction with his outside consulting work; accepting over $1,000 in gifts from oil and gas companies; using cocaine with a subordinate; having sex with two subordinates, where one episode is clearly a sexual assault.
Eight other employees: Socialized with and received gifts from companies with business before the royalty-in-kind program. Two of these employees are also alleged to have used drugs and had sexual relations with various agents of oil and gas companies with business before the program.
Here’s CNN reporting on the report:
The IG reports are available at ProPublica where Paul Kiel is providing running coverage.
Since 2001, when President Bush took office, the Department of the Interior was beset by problems arising from the appointment of officials who previously worked in or with the industries that the Department is intended to oversee.
Both the Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, and the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, Steven J. Griles, came from the extraction industries. Norton worked for a law firm that lobbied for a variety of companies, including oil, gas, and metal companies. Griles previously worked for a natural resources company and later provided public relations advice to a variety of extraction companies doing business with the government. Both Norton and Griles wound up caught in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. Norton resigned her post as the scandal encroached into the Department of the Interior, while Griles wound up pleading guilty.
Ethical standards trickle from the top on down. Some of the officials involved in this current scandal expressed the opinion that they “didn’t think ethics rules applied to them because of their ‘unique’ role in the agency and that they needed to socialize with industry representatives for ‘market intelligence.’” The Mineral Management Services scandal has been brewing for a long time and highlights a lack of oversight that occurs when a Department is staffed with individuals who are used to making money from the business they are charged with regulating.
-
Industry Influence: Alternative Energy
From Teapot Dome to Ted Stevens, the oil and gas industry holds a special place in imagination of Americans. This industry is one that is deeply connected to numerous corruption scandals throughout American history. In the 1920s, the Ohio Gang bought the election for Warren Harding, installed their own Interior Secretary and Attorney General, and went about stealing public lands to drill for resources. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Enron rigged the electricity market in California, helped elect a president, and funneled huge amounts of money into Republican coffers. And in 2008, Alaska’s senior senator, Ted Stevens, was indicted on charges related to his accepting gifts in exchange for seeking favors for the Alaskan oil company VECO.
Today, campaign contributions from the oil industry are ubiquitous in presidential and congressional races and oil lobbyists are paid millions in Washington. But in many ways, this is an old story. Instead of looking at oil and gas influence, why not look at the influence coming from new energy sources. If you’ve been watching television or reading the news, you’ve probably noticed the growth of stories surrounding alternative energy, from the explosion of wind turbine farms, Al Gore’s WE campaign, and T. Boone Picken’s plan. How does this nascent, yet exploding, industry measure up to the influence giants in Washington? (Continue reading…)
-
Oil & Coal Throw Down Half a Billion
Public Campaign Action Fund just released a report on total influence spending by the big oil, coal, and electricity interests for the first half of this year. The report shows that from January 1 to June 30 these companies have put down nearly half a billion dollars on trying to influence members of Congress, officials in Washington, and, through advertising, you. The total amount, viewed above, consists of campaign contributions, lobbying expenses, paid advertising and media, and contributions to 527s and other organizations doing political work.Check out the report. It’s an excellent examination of how industries use various channels to gain trust and influence.
-
Tapping “Black Gold” Campaign Cash
Despite protestations from our favorite tweeting and qiking member of Congress, there does appear to be a relationship between supporting the policies of an industry and that industry supporting your campaign. TPM Muckraker, using data from Campaign Money Watch, points out the near immediate contributions from executives of an oil giant, the Hess Corporation, to a joint Republican National Committee-John McCain committee after Sen. McCain switched his position on offshore drilling. (Since Sen. Barack Obama switched his position after the second quarter filings, we’ll have to wait to see if there’s a similar effect.)
Ten senior Hess Corporation executives and/or members of the Hess family each gave $28,500 to the joint RNC-McCain fundraising committee, just days after McCain reversed himself to favor offshore drilling, according to Federal Election Commission reports.
Nine of these contributions, seven from Hess executives and two from members of the Hess family, came on the same day, June 24th, the records show. The total collected in the wake of McCain’s reversal for the fund, called McCain Victory 2008, from Hess execs and family is $285,000.
The Washington Post pointed out last week that contributions from oil executives picked up in the end of June. After the events of the past few days, third quarter campaign reports should be flush with more of these contributions.
-
It’s Just Upping the Ante
The Politico published a pretty interesting analysis that used data from the Center for Responsive Politics to show how green energy interests are upping in pretty dramatic ways the amount of money they spend lobbying Congress. Despite these large increases, however, they remain vastly over spent by the oil and gas and coal mining industries. Think of it as the arms race applied to the world of money and politics.
The alternative energy industry has increased their lobbying outlays eightfold over the past ten years, going from $2 million to almost $16 million. For instance, the American Wind Energy Association spent over $815,000 on lobbying efforts, and the National Biodiesel Board spent more than $1,235,000.
Along with lobbying, the alternative energy sector has increased its giving of campaign contributions. So far in the 2008 election cycle, green energy has shelled out almost $528,000 to federal candidates, and is on the pace to match its giving high-water mark of almost $957,000 in 2000 when Al Gore was running for president. In 1998, the industry gave just over $308,000 in contributions.
In 1998, the alternative energy sector accounted for $308,000 in donations to candidates. So far this cycle, green industry donors have given nearly $528,000 – putting them on track to match or surpass their high water mark of nearly $957,000 in 2000, when global warming guru Al Gore topped the Democratic presidential ticket.
As impressive as these increases might be, they continue to be dwarfed by the traditional energy giants: oil and gas ($82,620,985 in 2007 for lobbying, $11,534,676 in contributions so far this cycle) and coal mining ($10,898,700 in 2007 for lobbying, $1,617,787 in contributions this cycle).
As you can see, the old energy industries of oil and gas and coal invest heavily in Congress. And thanks to a Capital Eye article written by CRP’s Lindsay Renick Mayer we now know that members of Congress invest their personal wealth heavily in old energy too. Lawmakers’ personal financial disclosure reports show they have "at least 45 times more money invested in the oil and gas industry (at least $20.6 million) than in public companies that provide "green" products and services (at least $452,100)," Mayer writes.
And so the beat goes on.
-
Morning News:
- The White House rejected a new EPA rule to "keep groundwater clean near oil drilling sites and other construction zones" after receiving complaints from oil and energy company executives. Ernest Angelo, a Texas oil man and a Republican activist, expressed his anger over the EPA rule by writing that many in the energy world "openly express doubt as to the merit of electing Republicans when we wind up with this type of stupidity." As always we like to remember that President Bush is the biggest recipient of campaign cash from the oil and gas industry in the entire history of elections in America.
- Anti-pork hardliner [sw: John Shadegg] (R-AZ) has fired the latest salvo in the Pork Wars between conservative Republican congressmen and [sw: Jerry Lewis]‘ (R-CA) Appropriations Committee by "circulating a newspaper story linking Rep. Jerry Lewis to ‘the inherent risk of corruption at the heart of the congressional earmark process.’"
- Several weeks ago [sw: Jerry Lewis] (R-CA) retained a lawyer to handle to federal investigation into his and his aides’ earmarking practices. One of Lewis’ lawyers is Barbara Comstock who is currently representing I. Lewis Libby in the Plame case.
- In Scotland, the famous destination of Jack Abramoff and his merry band of travellers, no one knows about the lobbyist’s well-documented golfing trips. Favorite quote: “’We have the same scandals,’ said Neil Paton, the head professional in the town’s only certified pro shop, ‘except our politicians go the beach in Spain or Italy.’"
- At least the corruption in this country doesn’t fuel an insurgency. In Iraq, that appears to be a huge problem.
-
Morning News:
- The San Bernardino Sun reports that two more cities have been subpoenaed in the federal investigation of Appropriations Chairman [sw: Jerry Lewis] (R-CA) and his ties to the lobbying firm Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White. The subpoenas issued to the two cities, Loma Linda and Twentynine Palms, push the total number of subpoenas issued so far to six in the investigation of Lewis’ earmark practices.
- David Safavian, aside from testifying that he is a doofus, also stated that he provided "a lot of insight and advice" to Jack Abramoff, according to the New York Times.
- House Democrats are holding a steering committee meeting today that many expect to center on Rep. [sw: William Jefferson]’s (D-LA) seat on the Ways and Means Committee. Jefferson, facing an imminent indictment for his role in a number of crooked deals, was asked to step down by Minority Leader [sw: Nancy Pelosi] (D-CA) but refused. Pelosi is expected to ask the Democratic Caucus to remove Jefferson from his committee seat and possibly replace him with another member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
- According to The Hill, [sw: Tom DeLay] (R-TX) will be leaving Congress this Friday and it looks like he’ll be slipping out the back door and not leaving with the bluster and pomp that he was known for during his tenure as one of the most powerful men on Capitol Hill.
- The Hill reports that the oil and gas industry is ramping up the fear rhetoric after the House voted to force oil companies to renegotiate their oil leases signed in 1998 and 1999. The industry is declaring that if this law passes the Senate than it would increase foreign investment in the Gulf of Mexico. After the vote in the House I did a quick run-down on oil-and-gas contributions to the Republicans who voted "Yea" and found that they took a significantly less from the industry than the average Republican. My colleague Larry Makinson did a more extensive review of career numbers and found the same pattern.
- And for some lighter news: "A struggling art galley is hoping a showing and possible sale of a pair of paintings by imprisoned ex-U.S. Rep. James A. Traficant Jr. will keep it open."
-
The Data Tells The Story
Kudos to my colleague, Paul Blumenthal, who writes the terrific In Broad Daylight blog for us, for doing the analysis to answer the question I raised this morning regarding whether the Republican lawmakers who voted against oil and gas company interests yesterday got less money from those interests than their Republican counterparts who stayed loyal to their cash constitutents. The answer: Yup, they sure did! Check out his analysis of the money from this election cycle. We’re going to dig a little deeper now and see what else we find out.
And this little shout out gives me the excuse to plug Paul’s daily news analysis and blog: It’s really terrific. It ought to be on your must read list every day, but only if you’re interested in what members try to get away with in broad daylight.
-
An Answer to Ellen’s Question:
Earlier this morning at Sunspots Ellen asked whether the Republicans who voted to take back tax incentives from oil and gas companies received less money from the oil and gas interests than those voting yes. As she noted the average intake of oil and gas money by a Republican in the 2006 election cycle is $11,645 versus $4,331 for a Democrat. So, is Ellen’s hunch right? Did these 66 Republicans receive less money on average than their party mates who voted against the tax incentive repeal?
The answer is yes. The average amount received from the oil and gas industry by these Republicans is $5,727, almost exactly half of what an average Republican received. Looking at the members who voted it is obvious why many of them did. The majority of these lawmakers come from eastern, midwest, and northeastern states with high traffic volume and high gas prices. Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan stand out. Both Republican House members from New Hampshire voted for the incentive repeal as did the two Republicans from Maryland and all of the Republicans from Connecticut. Florida led the southern states with the most members voting for the repeal at seven. This most likely reflects anger at the oil and gas industry for trying to open up the waters off of Florida’s coast to new drilling.
There are a couple of lawmakers voting for repeal that are completely unexpected. The one jumps off the page at you is House Resources Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA), known as a scourge to environmentalists and the best friend of oil and gas companies. Pombo topped all of the “Yea” Republicans with $66,200, which made him ninth overall (House and Senate) in oil and gas contributions. Why would Pombo backtrack all of a sudden? Perhaps it’s California’s sky high gas prices and the fact that his district is filled with commuters. But politics may be the best explanation. Pombo is facing his first serious challenge in both the Republican primary, from Endangered Species Act author Pete McCloskey, and in the general as Democrats have decided to target the Central Valley congressman. Taking a look at the list of Republicans voting here one can see that a number of them are expected to face grueling campaigns this year. CQ Politics lists 21 of these 66 Republicans as out of the “Safe Republican” category.
I think that the mix of these factors – a tough political climate, a lack of pressure form large campaign contributors, and pressure from constituents – leads these Republicans to buck their leadership and vote against a well known ally.
