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
-
Post-Citizens United, Lobbying Firm Helps Explain How To Avoid Disclosure Rules
According to Talking Points Memo, the lobbying firm K&L Gates posted a “Policy and Law Alert” on the web site describing the impact of the Citizens United decision. Here’s the key passage pulled out by TPM:
[G]roups of corporations within an industry may form coalitions or use existing trade associations to support candidates favorable to policy positions that affect the group as a whole. While corporations that contribute to these expenditures might still be disclosed, this indirect approach can provide sufficient cover such that no single contributing entity receives the bulk of public scrutiny.
Ah, “sufficient cover.” Since 80% of Americans are opposed to the Citizen United ruling, this may be a great way for corporations to avoid having their names attached to electoral ads. It’s just great that K&L Gates is out there helping independent actors hide the vast sums of money they plan to spend on electoral advertising from the American people’s eyes.
(Continue reading…)
-
Schumer and Van Hollen Embrace Transparency Measures to Combat Citizens United
The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC opened the door to a torrent of new political spending that, with the legislative framework they announced today, Senator Schumer and Representative Van Hollen are trying to stem. Sunlight released its own “legislative framework” in response to Citizens United some weeks ago, and we are pleased that many of our disclosure-related recommendations appear to have been embraced by Sen. Schumer and Rep. Van Hollen.
The “stand by your ad” provisions that will require corporate CEOs to approve of the ads they run in the same way candidates do is clearly necessary to increase accountability. The disclaimers on ads run by shell organizations should also shine some light on the generally shadowy practices of many of these groups and is welcome and vitally important in light of Citizens United.
Disclaimers on ads run by third party groups, however, only get part of the way to full transparency. To be meaningful, disclaimers must be coupled with real disclosure of who is funding the ads. The Schumer/Van Hollen framework addresses this concern with the new reporting of “political broadcast spending” for all corporations, labor unions, nonprofits and 527s. Disclosures outlined seem to cover most of the relevant bases including who controls the political broadcast spending account, the name of donors to the account, and amounts and purposes of expenditures from the account.
We would respectfully offer two words of advice to the legislative drafters as they flesh out these provisions. First, the framework released today does not specify the how or when these disclosures must be made. To be effective, the legislation must provide that disclosures be electronically filed and publicly available online within 24 hours. It’s too easy to game the system and hide expenditures from public view if there is not a hard and fast requirement for real-time online disclosure. Second, the framework suggests reliance on the FEC to make the information publicly available. If the FEC’s cumbersome, clunky, complicated campaign finance disclosures are any indication, the FEC needs a clear mandate to make sure its new disclosures of political broadcast spending are searchable, sortable, and meaningful to the general public.
Sunlight strongly supports the requirement that political expenditures made by a corporation be disclosed within 24 hours on the corporate Web site. We think the framework shortchanges shareholders, however, by requiring only quarterly reporting. It is, after all, their money being spent – they should be alerted immediately to any political spending on the SEC Web site and through the SEC’s comprehensive disclosure database.
The enhanced disclosures of lobbyists’ campaign expenditures is a good start, though again we would note that to be meaningful, the disclosures must be in real time, online and publicly available and a user-friendly, searchable database. But, in order to address the real threat to the balance of political power that is a result of Citizens United, lobbying disclosure should go much further. As I wrote here, the Citizens United case opened the door to coordination and possible coercion by putting in the hands of corporations, unions and their lobbyists the ability to threaten or imply that if a member of Congress doesn’t support their agenda, he will be faced with a barrage of ads opposing him (or supporting his opponent) in the next election. And, while the Schumer/Van Hollen framework rightly strengthens the ban on coordination to prevent such anti-democratic behavior, without a new disclosure requirement mandating that lobbyists report who they met with, there is no effective way to discern the possibility that such coordination took place.
We hope that when the legislation comes to the House or Senate floor, someone will offer an amendment that requires that within 24 hours of a lobbying contact, lobbyists be required to electronically report the name of the official being lobbied, a summary of the action requested, and the name of the lobbyist’s client or employer. (We’d also like to see the 20 percent exemption for lobbyist reporting eliminated so that all corporate and union heads along with anyone who bundles campaign contributions be required to report their meetings with government officials.) This is a vital way to demonstrate that the new expenditures now permitted because of Citizens United are truly independent.
A “legislative framework” is, of course, just the beginning. As the Members of Congress draft the actual legislation, we hope our suggestions will be incorporated so that the strongest possible disclosures will be in place to help shine a light on who is funding our elections.
-
Citizens United Part 2 – Lobbyist Disclosure
Sunlight recently developed a seven-point plan for a comprehensive and meaningful disclosure regime in a post-Citizens United political world.
John blogged about the first piece of the platform, Independent Expenditures, and today I’ll be focusing lobbying disclosure, which, even before Citizens United, needed to be updated to address the who, what, when, and why a lobbying contact took place. In the wake of Citizens United, real time, online, substantive disclosure becomes even more critical to demonstrate that corporate expenditures are indeed independent and to shed light on whether there is even the appearance of coercion.
Require Substantive, Timely Disclosure by Lobbyists
Imagine the following: Fat Cat Lobbyist meets Senator Spineless to ask for help with a controversial bill. Soon after, the airwaves in Senator Spineless’ state are blanketed with ads paid for by Fat Cat’s corporate (or union) client, supporting the senator in an upcoming election. The fundamental question is whether, when the senator met with the lobbyist, he felt threatened that he would face a barrage of negative attacks if he did not support the lobbyist’s position. As it stands now, nowhere is it disclosed that the meeting between the senator and the lobbyist even took place. There is simply no way for the public to decipher the senator’s motivation or whether he is acting in the public interest.
To shed light on such possible conflicts of interests, it is critical that within 24 hours of contacting a government official to request a specific government action, lobbyists be required to electronically report the name of the official being lobbied, a summary of the action requested and the name of the lobbyist’s client or employer.
Part and parcel to the requirement that lobbyists disclose the names of the officials they meet with is the requirement that all influence peddlers be required to report their meetings. The current 20 percent exemption for lobbyist reporting must be eliminated so that all significant contacts in which a request is made for a government action are fully disclosed. Corporate and union heads along with anyone who bundles campaign contributions must be required to report their meetings with government officials so that a gaping disclosure loophole can be closed.
The Citizens United decision gave corporations and unions a new and forceful method to twist the arms of elected officials in the form of threatened independent expenditures. This is a powerful weapon in the arsenal of organizations with very deep pockets. Only by exposing when and how that coercive weapon may be being used can the public understand its impact and have at least a chance of combating it.
-
Sunlight Testimony for Senate Rules Committee
Today the Senate Rules Committee held the first of what’s likely to be a series of hearings on Capitol Hill analyzing the fallout and proposing solutions to the havoc sowed as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Sunlight submitted written testimony outlining our seven-point plan for a new, comprehensive disclosure that emphasized getting the panoply of campaign finance information online, in real time.
Thought you might like to see it.
-
Citizens United Response, Part 1 – Independent Expenditures
As Ellen noted last Friday, we’ve crafted an agenda in response to the Citizens United decision, setting up the disclosure requirements necessary to give citizens the ability to track how money can now influence our politics.
I’ll be blogging on what we’ve identified, and inviting your response in the comments. Today, I’m starting with number one on our list:
Create a Powerful Independent Expenditure Reporting System
In its simplest form, the Citizens United decision reversed a ban on independent expenditures from corporations and unions. To understand what that means, a great place to start is the FEC’s now-outdated explanatory page on independent expenditures and coordinated communications. I’ll excerpt here, since the page will be changing soon:
Independent Expenditures
An independent expenditure is an expenditure for a communication “expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate that is not made in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate’s authorized committee, or their agents, or a political party or its agents.” 11 CFR 100.16(a).
Who May Make Independent Expenditures
Persons permitted to make contributions in connection with federal elections (such as individuals and political committees) may make independent expenditures. Persons prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections (such as corporations, labor organizations and individuals or businesses with federal government contracts) are similarly prohibited from making independent expenditures. However, there is one exception to this rule.
What we’re reading here is carefully prepared guidance, which cite regulations, and which are empowered through laws enacted by Congress and signed by the President. Citizens United does away with parts of all three. Since there isn’t a disclosure requirement in place yet for a practice that wasn’t permitted until now, that requirement must be created.
That’s our first step.
Since these new expenditures could have an enormous effect on the ideas and messages that the public and politicians receive, our first step is to arm them with knowledge about political spending that is occurring. The public needs this information so that we can evaluate advertisements, similar messages, and the actions of corporations, unions, and others. Similarly, politicians and government officials need this information so that they can understand who is trying to influence them.
This first element of our proposal contains a number of individual ideas. I’d be happy to flesh them out in more detail in the comments.
Our goal with this first section, however, is simple: to require the new political spending unleashed by Citizens United to be publicly disclosed, to the FEC, in the most meaningful way we there is — in real time, online, and with enough detail to understand what’s really happening.
-
A New Regime Required For Disclosure
As most of you know I have a long history in the campaign finance field as a founder of two organizations – one which is the nation’s première money and politics data crunching organization and a nonprofit that pioneered the concept of a system of full public financing. So it was with some substantial interest that I reviewed (and yes, I admit with horror) the results of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, which opened the floodgate for corporate and union spending in elections. If the sheer size of corporate bank accounts is any indicator, we will soon see just how much money can buy in the political arena.
Or will we? That is the critical question that must be addressed. Without an immediate update to the disclosure laws — covering everything from who has to disclose, what is required to be disclosed, how often, and in what form — the public will be unable to see this new spending as it occurs, nor how corporations and unions pour money into the many other pockets of a politician’s coat. Without vastly improved disclosure, we won’t be able to understand the new play of forces in Washington. Lobbyists, as well as top officials for corporations and unions, will have a new kind of leverage over politicians. The only deterrent to widespread arm-twisting of public representatives by private interests—short of a constitutional amendment reversing the Court’s ruling, or major changes in how campaigns are financed—may well be the requirement that such arm-twisting be disclosed in a timely manner. Clearly, now more than ever, our entire system of public disclosure of election-related contributions and expenditures needs to be upgraded to keep pace with the influences it is designed to track. And in the 21st century this means that everything must be filed online, in real time.
(Continue reading…)
-
Building a National Campaign for Transparency
What an exciting (and long and intense) few weeks it’s been.
When we got back into the office here at Sunlight on January 4th, we knew 2010 was the year we needed to build a national campaign of people calling for an open, transparent government everywhere across the country. We’ve known for months in fact, but honestly, we had no idea how people would respond when we put the word out.
Now, only three weeks later, a few very big events have unfolded, and each new event has created new opportunities – as well as more need for our collective action than ever before. In other words, it’s abundantly clear that we’re on the right track.
It’s time to start putting the pieces together, and we’ve updated our initial sign up page with a statement of need for a national campaign and our next 4 steps to launch it in March.
(Continue reading…)
-
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.
-
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.
