Sunlight’s Ellen Miller posted previously on President-Elect Barack Obama’s use of Internet video - or lack of imaginative use. Recently, Obama posted a video to YouTube (among other video sharing sites) addressing climate change and energy policy. This is what it looks like:

In response to Obama’s address, Rep. Ed Markey, the chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, posted his own video:

Now this isn’t the most thrilling discussion, although it may be the first time a lawmaker has responded to a President-Elect through a video sharing service. Instead it’s more of a laudatory salutation for joining those few politicians using Internet technologies. Despite the lack of substance in Rep. Markey’s video, the potential is evident for lawmakers who want to respond, or correspond, with a YouTube posting President.

A few things to note on President-Elect Obama’s videos: (1) Comments are disabled. I’m not the biggest fan of YouTube commenters, but if you are going to use the Internet the first order of business is to enable discussion. (2) Video responses are disabled. I can kind of understand disabling YouTube comments (really not a big fan of YouTube commenters), but not video responses. That is where I would imagine Rep. Markey’s video would go, and where any other lawmaker, Washington power player, or citizen could post their views in video format. That takes a bit more effort than posting a six-word comment and would provide for the two-way dialogue that the Internet enables.

I’m going to have to echo Ellen’s previous post, “I don’t see how one-way messages provide any more transparency for the work of the White House or government than the current old style radio addresses.”

0 Comments

My colleague Anupama Naranswamy writes at the Real Time Investigations blog about the lobbying campaign waged by Dubai businesses in their efforts in 2006 to both purchase the operations of numerous ports and fight off a wave of public anger against the foreign ownership of those ports. Most illuminating in the story is how Foreign Agent Registration Agency (FARA) reports, the lobbying disclosure forms required for all foreign lobbyists, allow for a muckraker to follow the lobbying trail.

By using disclosures required under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which require firms lobbying for foreign political parties, governments and government owned organizations—including for-profit companies—to list their meetings with government officials, it is possible to trace part of the campaign to win approval for the deal. The Sunlight Foundation released a prototype database with records from lobbyists for 15 countries, which was used in this report.

FARA records show that Glover Park Group was active early. Lobbyists from the firm first met with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s national security adviser, then with staffers from the House Intelligence Committee. Lobbyists working on behalf of DAE also made early contacts with Rep. Peter King, R-NY. Both Pelosi and King had opposed the Dubai Ports deal.

At least another seven contacts were made during March with the offices of Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., both of whom questioned the DP World ports deal. In all, the Glover Park Group made contacts at least 18 times during the month of March.

Lobbyists for DAE began seeking the support of members of Congress in March 2007—before a formal deal to purchase the two aviation firms hammered out. The company was joined in its efforts by the Carlyle Group and trade groups including the U.S.-U.A.E. Business Council and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Overall, DAE spent $780,000 on lobbyists between February 2007 and August 2008.

Read the whole article here.

0 Comments

The idea of far greater transparency in government affairs is spreading fast. How can you tell? Today’s Washington Times carries an op-ed by one of Washington’s top lawyers, Lanny Davis, that includes both a full-throated defense of the lobbying profession and an endorsement for “total transparency.”

Here’s a simple proposal:

Every lobbyist visiting a member of Congress or the executive branch to influence official action (the definition of lobbying) should first be required to sign in on an online, real-time computer (and thus, immediately accessible to all).

Information to be disclosed before the meeting should include the lobbyist’s name, the client represented, the amount paid by month or year for lobbying, the specific purpose of the meeting, the position to be taken by the lobbyist, the legislation to be discussed, the action to be requested (the “ask” or “asks,” to be updated after meeting), and the amount of current and prior campaign donations made by the client, the lobbyist and relatives associated with both.

Every time, every meeting. It’s as simple as that.

One of the biggest failures in lobbying transparency is the absence of any disclosure of actual meetings. The current state of transparency for lobbyists is poor. Lobbyists only have to file quarterly reports that do not detail with whom they are meeting, what they are meeting about, and what their client is seeking. Lobbyists are also only required to file semiannual reports detailing their contributions to lawmakers. All of this amounts to a less-than-satisfactory system of disclosure providing the public with an incredibly limited view into the workings of their government.

It’s heartening to see that some who travel in the highest circles of Washington lawyers and lobbyists, like Lanny Davis, are backing a more robust version of transparency. For another take on real lobbyist disclosure see Sunlight’s Transparency in Government Act.

2 Comments

After my post this morning about how the next Administration can make their communications more interactive, I ran across a nice piece by Dan Manatt, founder of PoliticsTV.com and TechPresident contributor, who wrote the Obama Tech Team a memo giving advice on what Web video programs they should create and implement to better govern.

Dan says:

Your campaign platform on digital democracy, ethics and transparency, lays out an excellent roadmap to begin bringing the Presidency into the 21st century. And of course the speculation has already begun on how change.gov will morph into whitehouse.gov - and what becomes of barackobama.com….

The technological transformation of the presidency - and its use of technology to make the executive branch more responsive, interactive, and transparent - can, from day one, be the first great achievement and legacy of the Obama Presidency. It can also be a means to continue togenerate political good will and capital - commodities that often evaporate quickly after a typical presidential honeymoon. So it not only makes good policy sense, it makes good political sense.

Here’s the short version:

(1)   WhiteHouse.gov/TV; (2) Weekly Obama Webcast; (3) GovTube; (4) Video Content on Non-Governmental sites; (5) in every executive branch agency, create New Media, Transparency, and Technology offices; (6) have cabinet members/agency heads give monthly Webcasts; (7) Webcast the Inauguration; (8) make the State of the Union an interactive, multimedia event; (9) make the President’s annual budget a digital, multimedia document; (10) enact all of this and more first by executive order, then through legislation, so future Administrations can’t just hard reboot your digital legacy.

Check out the full post.

0 Comments

Change.org is asking people to submit ideas and then vote them up. The top ideas will be submitted to the Obama Administration during inauguration. Our always intrepid Board Member Craig Newmark submitted the cause Act Now for Transparency!

Now is definitely the time to act. Vote for Transparency and let’s send a message to the new administration that we are serious about a real open and accountable government.

0 Comments

So this morning Jose Vargas reports in the Washington Post that the President-elect will record YouTube videos of his regular Saturday morning radio chats. The new administration is touting this as partial delivery on its pledge to use the Internet to engage with citizens and to create more transparency. But I actually don’t see it that way.

Yes, this move will give the new Administration another way to broadcast its message to  folks. And people on the receiving end don’t have to tune in at a specific time, the way you do for the radio address. No doubt more people will hear these weekly messages because of that and that’s a good thing. But what does a YouTubing talking head really do in terms of engaging citizens or for providing more transparency?

The way it’s been outlined thus far, we’re still looking at an old style  ”Fireside” chat in a new format. How about providing for a little more interactivity around it? Use the White House YouTube channel to solicit questions from people, and invite the public to vote their favorites to the top? That’s what David Cameron, the British Conservative Party Leader, did with “WebCameron.” And that’s what the bigdialog.org coalition is trying to do now. How about creating real conversations such as online chats with the president or cabinet officials? Or how about simply providing opportunities for people to respond to the messages, by opening up comments on the YouTube Platform.

And as for transparency, I don’t see how one-way messages provide any more transparency for the work of the White House or government than the current old style radio addresses.

4 Comments

Looking for a job in the transparency field? Well, lots of folks are, so in response to the recent commitment by the incoming administration to increase government transparency, Sunlight has created Transparency Jobs to aggregate all the employment opportunities for transparency-related careers. We launched the site a couple of minutes ago.

Transparency Jobs features opportunities in government and in nonprofits.

We want to take President-elect Obama up on his word to create a more transparent government and so we are calling on everyone to get ready to change the culture in Washington by making the inner workings of our government transparent. We’ve created Transparency Jobs to help connect those who want to dedicate their careers to opening up Washington with the opportunities that currently exist. We hope to build it into a vital resource.

Anyone can submit a post to the site, though all listings are moderated by Sunlight staff.

1 Comment

A couple of days ago, I blogged about the need for transparency in the bailout. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, or H.R. 1424, does contain Section 105 where reporting requirements can be found. The section says that the Secretary of the Treasury is required to report to Congress 60 days into the bailout and every 30-day period thereafter on the actions taken, the actual obligation and expenditure of funds over that period, and a detailed financial statement of all activity, transactions, costs, etc.

The second sub-section requires the secretary to compile “tranche reports” once the $50 billion and $100 billion commitment levels are reached. Earlier this week, Treasury released their first report. And the law requires Treasury to produce a written report on the state of the financial markets and regulatory system and submit it to Congress no later than April 30, 2009. But as OMB Watch said, ProPublica is steps ahead of Treasury by compiling a better, more up to date list than the mandated government reports. This is obviously one sign of the need for even better transparency.

Also, The New York Times reports that of the $350 billion released by Congress, only $60 billion is left to be doled out. That means that the spending of the money far outpaces disclosure. Paul Blumenthal, my Sunlight colleague, has already blogged about that. Certainly a little more timely transparency is warranted than the receipt of some report in April, over five and a half months from now.

Can this administration even define what the words real-time, on line, downloadable data means?

1 Comment

The Presidential transition is a costly effort for both the incoming and outgoing administrations. The Presidential Transitions Act appropriates $5.2 million to the transition, but the Obama transition team is anticipating much higher costs.

According to the transition chief John Podesta, the Obama-Biden Transition Project (change.gov) intends to solicit private donations with a contribution limit of $5,000 from private individuals, excluding federally registered lobbyists. In the end, Podesta expects the transition to spend $12 million (including the publicly allocated funds) and employ 450 people.

The immediate issue that comes to mind when discussing contributions of money to an organization representing the President-elect is disclosure. How? What? When? Where? After spending a few hours today trying to gather this information myself, I clicked on the Open Secrets blog, Capital Eye, and found this short and sweet answer:

According to the Presidential Transitions Effectiveness Act, a single donor can contribute a total of $5,000 to the transition effort, even if the donor already gave money to Obama’s candidate committee or leadership PAC. Unlike contributions to these committees, however, donations to the nonprofit won’t have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission as political contributions because the organization is set up as a 501(c)(4), as designated by the Internal Revenue Service (these contributions are generally not tax-deductible as charitable contributions). Instead, Obama will have to disclose the source, date and amount of each contribution to the General Services Administration by February 20, a month after he’s already taken office.

Obama’s transition chief, John Podesta, told the Washington Post the team would be disclosing the names of all donors at the end of every month. Obama has also decided to bar registered lobbyists from contributing to his transition team, continuing his ethics rules on the campaign trail.

In 2000, then President-elect George W. Bush posted the donors to his transition online (although I’m not entirely sure as to whether this occurred prior to or after his inauguration). Back then, however, disclosure involved posting a giant .zip file on the front page of his bushcheneytransition.com web site.

0 Comments

In what may be considered one of the greatest feeding frenzies since the Night of Living Dead, lobbyists are working hand-in-foot to get their clients, even if they do not fit the profile, a piece of the $700 billion bank bailout pie. From plumbers to boat dealers, automakers to credit card companies, the type of companies applying for bailout bucks expands by the day.

On Monday, American Express, a credit card company, was approved to receive bailout money. You may ask yourself, “Why American Express? They don’t fit the profile required under the TARP law.” The New York Times, in an article detailing the lobbyist frenzy, explains the logistics of who is able to receive funds under TARP authorization:

Under the terms of the $250 billion capital purchase program announced last month, cash infusions are available to “qualifying U.S. banks, savings associations, and certain bank and savings and loan holding companies, engaged only in financial activities.”

The massive lobbying effort put forth by corporations and industry groups has led to an expansion of those included in the bailout. For others, including American Express, the best option was to have the Treasury Department reclassify them as a bank holding company, thus making them eligible. According to the New York Times, both GE Capital and GMAC, the financial arm of General Motors, are also attempting to reclassify as “a bank or savings and loan holding company.”

The lobbying is intense, putting Treasury Department staffers at the front lines under extreme pressure. Some are even receiving calls from lobbyists representing clients with no interest in receiving funds, like hedge funds, who are trying to gather intelligence for trading in markets. Other companies are hiring lobbyists for the first time to get a piece of the pie.

At this moment there is no way to gauge lobbyist activity outside of the reporting of some journalists. In this “ocean of money” lobbyists operate at depths not viewable by the public. The public will not get to see how much money is being spent until the next quarterly reports are released. Even then, lobbyists are not required to list their contacts with government officials and do not need to list the specifics of what they are lobbying for. In the quest for bailout bucks, the public will never truly be able to know what is going on as more and more companies try and get a piece of the pie.

If we are going to dole out $700 billion in taxpayer money the government ought to mandate real disclosure for lobbyists.  Just as important as how the bailout bucks are spent is how the bailout bucks are acquired. Lobbyists are playing a vital role in helping all sort of corporations and organizations gain access to the bailout pie. They must disclose their activities fully if there is to be real transparency in the bailout give away.

Here’s a good place to start.

0 Comments