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
-
This Week in Transparency – July 31, 2009
Here are some of the more interesting media mentions of Sunlight and our friends and allies over the past week:
National Journal’s Eliza Newlin Carney wrote about how the health care industry is unleashing big money as the health care debate in Congress intensifies. She notes the blog post from Paul Blumenthal, Sunlight’s senior writer, about how five of Sen. Max Baucus‘ (Mont.) former staff members now work for a total of 27 different organizations that either represent the health care or insurance industries, or have a vested interest in the debate. She also quotes Paul, “We thought it was important to show the public that the senators aren’t crafting the policy by themselves. They have all these other connections, through relationships, that have a huge stake in this legislation.” Trudy Lieberman with the Columbia Journalism Review also highlighted and linked to Paul’s post and the graphic he and Kerry Mitchell, Sunlight’s creative director, produced. The “study shows exactly what advocates of real and substantive health reform are up against,” Lieberman wrote, adding that Sunlight provides clarity on just who has the senator’s ear.
Speaking of Kerry’s graphic art skills, The New York Times‘ “First Look” blog includes one of his illustrations in a post highlighting great visualizations created by designers using the Times APIs that “both beautify and clarify information.” Kerry’s graphic illustrates the Times’ usage of the word “transparency” since 1990.
David Talbot at MIT’s Technology Review, in an article how volunteers are using the Web to help make the U.S. government more accountable, highlighted Transparency Corps. Talbot quoted Clay Johnson, director of Sunlight Labs, “Government puts out a ton of data that is really interesting about what it does, but people can’t understand it.” Transparency Corps launch roughly coincided with the launch earlier this month of the White House’s IT Dashboard, the administration’s effort to chart the progress of information-technology projects in various federal agencies. The article quotes Andrew Rasiej, Sunlight’s senior technology advisor and co-founder of Personal Democracy Forum, saying the dashboard may be just the tip of the iceberg heralding a new age of transparency regarding federal spending. “Once people get used to this type of information being so readily accessible, they will demand to see (it) for all other federal spending too, and then the genie will be completely out of the bottle.”
Dan Eggen at The Washington Post wrote how the debate about health-care reform has been a boon to the political fortunes of the 52 members of the Blue Dog Coalition, who have become key brokers in shaping legislation in the House. Eggan used Party Time data to show show U.S. Rep. Mike Ross (Ark.), a leader of the Blue Dogs, has had a steady schedule of fundraising events sponsored by the health industry or lobbying firms that represent health-care companies. Eggen used data from the Center for Responsive Politics that showed Ross had received nearly $1 million in contributions from the health-care sector and insurance industry during his five terms in Congress. On the topic of Party Time, be sure not to miss National Journal’s interview with Party Time’s director Nancy Watzman.
-
Dear Inspector General Barofsky
This morning a letter was sent by numerous organization recommending Whistleblower protection initiatives to enhance accountability Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.
Here is the letter in full.
Dear Inspector General Barofsky,
As Congress considers whether and how to release the second $350 billion tranche under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA), we write to share our perspective as the nation’s largest and oldest whistleblower protection organizations, government watchdogs, scientists, taxpayer advocates, and on behalf of small property owners across the country. We congratulate you on your appointment as Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and offer our enthusiastic support for your efforts to ensure that any tax dollars allocated to the TARP program be spent transparently, according to the law and the intent of Congress, as outlined in your January 23 letter to Senator Charles Grassley. We also wish to share our recommendations for carrying out this vital task.
-
Conyers Sets up Web Site for Justice Department Whistleblowers
Congressional investigators are using the Web to ask whistleblowers to come forward in crucial investigations. Today, John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced a new Web page asking current and former employees of the Justice Department to come forward with any information regarding the politicization of the law enforcement agency. Earlier this year, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) introduced a whistleblower e-mail hotline for his committee. This seems like a great way for investigators to connect with executive branch employees with a story to tell. Just as members of Congress can use the Internet to better communicate with citizens, congressional investigators can use the Internet to better connect with whistleblowers.
-
House Considers Transparency Measures
We’ve been following the progress of a couple of bills making their way through Congress. H.R. 1309 puts a little more teeth in our Freedom of Information Act–the main lever that the press and the public has for prying documents out of the executive branch (and see here for useful FOIA tips maintained by Investigative Reporters & Editors), while S. 223 would, for the first time, require campaign committees of Senate candidates to file their contribution and expenditure information electronically with the Federal Election Commission rather than sending in stacks of paper (both House and Presidential candidates file electronically).
There are other measures that are worth noting as well (with votes on all scheduled in the House for today and tomorrow). For me, the most interesting is H.R. 1254, which would force presidential library foundations to make their donor lists public. It is unseemly enough to have a foundation seeking millions of dollars from donors–corporate and individual, U.S. and foreign–to build what is essentially a monument to a former president; that they can do so anonymously, while that president is still in office, is a recipe for corruption (The name Marc Rich immediatley springs to mind for some reason…)
H.R. 1255 establishes procedures for releasing presidential records, and overturning the 2001 executive order from President George W. Bush that sharply restricted (and in many cases out-and-out eliminated) public access to these government documents. I’d actually like to see a government records act that goes a little further–former government officials generally have not only much better but also lengthy periods of exclusive access to their records. In 1992, Steve Weinberg wrote a book (along with my old shop, the Center for Public Integrity, called For Their Eyes Only: How Presidential Appointees Treat Public Documents As Personal Property that documented the ways in which presidential appointees “take classified documents with them after leaving public service, use the materials to write lucrative memoirs, and then seal off these documents for decades from historians, journalists, and other researchers.” It’s not just presidential papers to which the public needs better access.
H.R. 985 expands whistleblower protections–protecting agency employees who report waste, fraud, abuse, illegalities and other malfeasance to members of Congress or Inspectors General from administration retribution.
Finally, H.R. 1362 addresses shortcomings in the government’s relationships with private contractors. Rep. Henry Waxman, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, has a summary of the bill’s provisions here. Just a quick observation on this–I’d like to have seen a provision that would try to determine why, for so many contracts for which there is open bidding, only one bidder shows up (which seems to me to be almost as bad as no-bid contracts, and as much of a problem). In 2005, the last year for which we have complete data, ten percent of contracts–worth nearly $40 billion–were awarded under that scenario, according to our friends at FedSpending.org.
All these bills would add to our ability to know what government is up to and keep it accountable–not a bad couple of day’s work for the House if they pass them…
