According to Jeff Birnbaum at the Washington Post, the new lobbying disclosure forms, intended to shine a light on lobbyist contributions and gift giving, aren’t just riddled with loop holes, but are simply missing sections to fill out:

Jan W. Baran of Wiley Rein notes that the new law asks lobbyists to report any contributions they make to groups established, financed, maintained or controlled by members of Congress or their staff. Such groups include charities and schools named for sitting lawmakers. But he said there is no specific place on the form to list such expenditures.

Corporations and trade associations have to use the form to certify that they understand, and have complied with, tough new gift-giving restrictions that apply to members of Congress. But Kenneth A. Gross of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom said there is no place on the form where one person from such organizations can sign and take responsibility for the certification.

(more…)

0 Comments

In October 2006, Sunlight grantee OMB Watch set up FedSpending.org, a free, searchable database of federal government spending. Subsequent updates have allowed public access to approximately $16.8 trillion in federal government spending, with complete annual data from FY 2000 through FY 2006 and partial data available for FY 2007. The site was so successful that the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) set up USASpending.gov within the Office of Management and Budget, which Congresspedia dubbed "the ‘Google’ of federal spending" by bringing tremendous transparency to how and where government spends tax dollars. As the site says, it’s searchable and accessible by the public for free, and includes for each federal award:

1. The name of the entity receiving the award;
2. The amount of the award;
3. Information on the award including transaction type, funding agency, etc;
4. The location of the entity receiving the award; and
5. A unique identifier of the entity receiving the award.

U.S. Sens. Tom Coburn and Barack Obama, the original sponsors of the FFATA in 2006, recognize there is more to be done. Moments ago, Coburn and Obama introduced the Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008 (S. 3077), which would require the federal government to go beyond summary data on contracts it currently posts. Since the senators just introduced the bill, we don’t yet have a link. We have learned from OMB Watch that the bill contains the following improvements and tweaks:

• Government agencies will add the requests for proposals and the actual contract to the summary information currently available on USASpending.gov, allowing citizens to compare what government asked for and what it got (and how much more or less it had to spend);
• Government will have to publish performance information on contracts, bringing greater accountability to government contractors and those who hire them;
• Grantees will have to disclose additional information, including what type of organization they are (state or local government, university, charity, and so on), the extent to which they rely on other sources for the projects for which they’re seeking federal funding, and whether the funds they’ve received were congressionally directed (that is, an earmark);
• Data quality will be enhanced, and users will be able to easily report errors.

This bill should bring greater disclosure to official government acts, all accessible on the Internet, requiring the federal government to go beyond the summary data on contracts it currently posts.

Only a transparent government can be truly accountable and responsive to its citizens. And we know this bill will bring the executive branch of government closer to realizing this goal.

0 Comments

From the Center for Responsive Politics:

In the contests for Congress, 1st Quarter fundraising totals for some congressional candidates — many of them incumbent senators — still haven’t come out electronically from the FEC. (Senators insist on filing their reports on paper even though everyone else files electronically, so this usually explains the delay in getting electronic information — it has to be keyed in at your expense, taxpayer.)

OpenSecrets.org will update their congressional profiles as the data becomes available. Expect deeper analysis next month.

0 Comments

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by Rep. Jim McDermott of a ruling that he acted improperly by passing on to reporters a recording of a 1996 telephone call where Republican leaders talked strategy in regard to the ethics case pending against former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). This week’s decision also leaves standing a previous court ruling saying that McDermott would have to pay $60,000 in damages and $800,000 in legal bills to now House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), who had sued the Washington Democrat in 1998.

The question is, how is McDermott going to pay? CQ looked into whether he can use a legal-defense fund to help pay Boehner and it seems possible. It turns out that McDermott is one of six House members who maintain active legal defense funds, reporting contributions this year. CQ says that the rise in these separate accounts funds is a result of an increase in Justice Department and Federal Election Commission investigations. So far this year, McDermott has received more contributions to his defense fund than all other members of Congress, about $52,000, most coming from his Seattle district.

What do we know about these legal defense funds? Well, we know it’s a separate account that can be set up by a House member who can receive up to $5,000 from an individual in contributions per year. Lobbyists may not give to legal defense funds but House rules do allow corporate and union contributions to give to these funds. These accounts must disclose all contributions and expenses just as campaign committees and political action committees do. Both House and Senate legal expense funds file quarterly on paper only. Representatives file these paper documents with the Clerk of the House and if you live in DC you can go the office in the Capitol to see what money is being raised. You guessed it. These reports are not available online. The laws governing the disclosure of legal defense funds is House Rule XXV(5)(c)(3).

Yes, you read me right. Lawmakers are allowed to collect funds from individuals, corporations and labor unions to help them get out of legal difficulties, report them only quarterly and then effectively hide the reports in an obscure office to the Capitol building.

There’s a lot wrong with this picture. Legal defense fund reporting needs to come into the 21^st century. Our friends at the Center for Responsive Politics, the pros at following the money, have highlighted similar funds in the past, such as the one held by former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas). In 2000, then U.S. Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.) set up the New Jersey Legal Fund to cover legal fees generated attempting to fight off an investigation into alleged fund-raising improprieties during his 1996 campaign for Senate. CRP found that of the 105 donors to Torricelli’s fund, "many are familiar names in Democratic fund-raising circles, while others work for corporations that stand to benefit from legislation pending in the Senate, including pharmaceutical companies and interests involved in the debate over asbestos litigation." I’d be willing to bet that’s the same with every single fund. Currently CRP has nothing comprehensive or ongoing regarding these legal funds, and there is no database. .

0 Comments

Going on eight months now the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act, requiring senators to file their campaign finance reports electronically, has been held up by proceedural maneuvers from the Republican side. After a series of secret holds placed on the bill were thwarted once secret holds were banned (Senators with secret holds must reveal their identity after 72 hours) Sen. John Ensign blocked the bill by offering a poison pill amendment that lacked relevance to the bill. Ensign’s amendment, revealed on this blog to have originated from the offices of Mitch McConnell, requires outside organizations filing ethics complaints to reveal their donor list. For months now, this irrelevant, poison pill amendment has blocked a simple change in how Senators file their campaign finance reports that would help make the data more readily accessible to the voting public. Now a coalition of groups, including a number of conservative groups, has formed to ask Ensign to drop his amendment and allow the electronic filing bill to pass. The groups include:

Alliance for Justice
Americans for the Preservation of Liberty
The American Conservative Union
James Bopp Jr., General Counsel James Madison Center for Free Speech
Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest
The Free Speech Coalition
Gun Owners of America,
National Center for Public Policy Research
OMB Watch

The full letter is after the jump.

November 9, 2007

The Honorable Harry Reid
528 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Mitch McConnell
361-A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Re: Drop Retaliatory Ensign Amendment to S. 223

Dear Senators Reid and McConnell,

We are writing as nonprofit organizations to ask you to defeat an amendment proposed by Senator John Ensign of Nevada to S. 223, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act. It would require any charity, religious organization or civic group that files an ethics complaint against a Senator or a Senate campaign to disclose donors that give more than $5,000.

This proposal is a clear attempt to intimidate the public from seeking enforcement of Senate ethics rules. Its unmistakable purpose is to discourage organizations from taking action to keep government accountable. Its retaliatory nature is counter to donors’ privacy rights and the First Amendment rights of association and speech, and raises significant constitutional questions.

This proposal contravenes and runs counter to the letter and spirit of well-established tax law policies, rules and regulations protecting the identity of donors that were enacted in recognition of the Supreme Court’s decision in NAACP v. Alabama. If adopted, this provision would have the effect of changing existing tax law without the benefit of a full and open public debate, including involvement of Congressional tax-writing committees, and without a change in the Supreme Court’s decision.

Current law provides adequate information about any organization filing an ethics complaint. Any Senator can learn more about the organization by requesting disclosure of their IRS Form 990, which does not publicly identify donors, but does provide information on key leadership, finances and activities.

Civic participation in the United States most often occurs through nonprofit organizations. Individuals who want to influence public policy or hold government accountable know they can be more effective by joining and supporting such organizations. They do so with an expectation of privacy that was recognized by the Supreme Court.

We urge you to oppose the Ensign amendment.

Yours truly,

Alliance for Justice
Americans for the Preservation of Liberty
The American Conservative Union
James Bopp Jr., General Counsel James Madison Center for Free Speech
Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest
The Free Speech Coalition
Gun Owners of America,
National Center for Public Policy Research
OMB Watch

The following private companies also concur with this letter:
Eberle Communications Group, Inc.
Harbinger Communications Co., Inc.

cc: Sen. Max Baucus, Sen. Robert Bennett, Sen. Barbara Boxer, Sen. Thad Cochran,
Sen. John Cornyn, Sen. John Ensign, Sen. Russell Feingold, Sen. Dianne Feinstein,
Sen. Charles Grassley, Sen. John McCain

0 Comments

Who knew a little bill requiring senators to file their campaign finance reports electronically could cause such a problem on Capitol Hill? Today, Senate Republicans under the stewardship of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell tried their hand at a parliamentary trick to add poison pill amendments to S. 223. When Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to move S. 1, the Senate' lobbying reform package, to conference committee Sen. Bob Bennett attempted to add S. 223 while reserving the right to add another amendment. Bennett likely wanted to slip in the same amendment that he tried to add to S.223 when it was in committee. That amendment would allow party committees, like the RNC or the DSCC, to coordinate campaign activities with candidate committees. Bennett's amendment is widely opposed by the majority Democrats and would not only make S. 223's passage impossible in conference or in the House of Representatives, but would endanger the entire lobbying and ethics reform package. Reid scuttled this parliamentary trickery by objecting to Bennett's proposition. The Senate went into convulsions and recessed without advancing S. 1 to conference committee. (There are some conflicting accounts of exactly how this proceeded.))

Since the Senate minority is upping the ante with procedural tricks, the Sunlight Foundation has decided to up the ante on Mitch McConnell. Today, Sunlight announced the extension of the deadline for our campaign to get Mitch McConnell on the record responding to questions about the continued blocking of S. 223. Not only is the deadline extended but the prize money is doubled. You will now receive $1,000 if you are the first to submit a video of McConnell responding to questions about the bill. Check out What's McConnell Hiding? for more details.

0 Comments

  Today, the Sunlight Foundation launched a new campaign to reveal which senator is blocking passage of the Senate Campaign Disparity Act (S. 223). If you’ve been following this story here you know that twice this bill - which would require senators to file their campaign finance reports electronically - has been blocked by an anonymous Republican senator who is being hidden by Sen. Mitch McConnell. In his home state of Kentucky we are launching a billboard and a Web site to force McConnell to reveal the name of the anonymous senator. The Louisville Courier-Journal and the Politico have already picked up the story. Check out What’s McConnell Hiding? for more details or continue reading below the fold. We have a number of ways for you to get involved.

What’s McConnell Hiding? is a site based on action. You can call Mitch McConnell and ask him to release the names, you can write to an editorial board in Kentucky, you can take our poll to indicate your position on what McConnell should do, or you can participate in our contest. Our poll is equipped as a poll widget, which we encourage you to put on your blog, if you have one, so that your readers can vote in the poll as well.

So, you’ve heard about the poll and now you’re wondering about this contest. The first person to send us a video of McConnell responding to questions about who is blocking S. 223 will receive $500. That’s $500 if you can get McConnell on record responding to questions or refusing to respond about which senators are blocking S. 223. So break out those cameras and start recording.

This campaign is important to end the notion that our elected representatives can hide while they prevent no-brainer legislation from passing. It’s time to let Mitch McConnell know that this practice has got to stop now! No more secret government, no more delayed campaign finance information, and no more anonymous senators.

Let’s make Mitch McConnell reveal what he’s hiding! Go to whatsmitchmcconnellhiding.com and join the campaign to free S. 223 and begin to end secret government practices. We don’t need to wait to do it. We can do it now.

0 Comments

On Monday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to help her pass S.223, the Senate campaign finance electronic filing bill. McConnell has been abetting a Republican objection to the bill by refusing to reveal information about who in his party does not approve of this no-brainer legislation. While McConnell states that Republican Senators want to offer amendments to the bill he also refuses to identify and describe these amendments. Feinstein is committed to passing this bill and McConnell has said that he supports it. McConnell must meet with Sen. Feinstein to work together to pass this bill without poison pill amendments. Feinstein’s letter asks for McConnell to identify to her the amendments that Republican Senators wish to offer. If they have the kind of support that S.223 has than they could be added. If they are controversial, they should go through the regular committee process. This is very simple and fair. Read the letter:

The Honorable Mitch McConnell

The Republican Leader

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mitch:

I write to ask for your assistance in getting S. 223, the “Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act,” adopted by the Senate. I am willing and eager to work with you and our Senate colleagues to get this legislation passed.

As the Republican Leader and also a member of the Rules Committee, you are well aware of hurdles Senators Feingold and I have faced in having this bill brought up for consideration and passed on the Senate Floor.

To date, the Member or Members on your side who objected to taking up and adopting the bill have not come forward to say why the bill is being held up.

This is a simple, straight-forward bill that brings transparency to campaign report filing procedures. There is no public opposition. Most important, S. 223 has broad bipartisan support — currently, 38 of our colleagues have signed on as cosponsors, including 15 Republicans.

Your press spokesman has suggested that the bill was held up because some members of your party may wish to offer amendments. I am ready to meet with those Senators to discuss their amendments and try to address their concerns.

If they insist on remaining anonymous, I would ask you to identify those amendments yourself.

If those amendments, like this bill, have broad bipartisan support and no one opposes them on the merits, we may be able to reach agreement to have them considered.

If, on the other hand, they are controversial proposals and would threaten the ultimate enactment of this bill, I would ask that you allow the Rules Committee to consider them in the normal course and permit this bill to go through without amendment.

I look forward to working with you and my Senate colleagues to make S. 223 law.

With warm personal regards,

Dianne Feinstein

Chairman

0 Comments

The Sunlight Foundation and nearly a dozen other groups today sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to urge her to add to the upcoming lobbying reform legislation a provision that would require members to electronically file their personal financial disclosure forms.  These reports provide detailed information on each members' personal financial assets, and are critical to the public's understanding of whether their representative's private interests might conflict with his or her public duties as a lawmaker. Congress, which has required electronic filing of reports by lobbyists, campaign committees and 527 organizations, has failed to make personal financial disclosure reports available on the Internet-even in PDF format. Instead, the reports and the information contained in them are buried in the basement office of the House Clerk.

The House Ethics Manual states that "…public disclosure of assets, financial interests, and investments has been required as the preferred method of regulating possible conflicts of interest of Members of the House and certain congressional staff. Public disclosure is intended to provide the information necessary to allow Members' constituencies to judge their official conduct in light of possible financial conflicts with private holdings."

But because these reports are currently disclosed within the boundaries of the Capitol Hill, constituents from Maine to California, from Alaska to Florida, must either head to Washington themselves to get the necessary information or rely on the efforts of privately funded groups like the Center for Responsive Politics to make the information truly public. 

In the Internet age, members of Congress should abide by and honor the purpose of filing a financial disclosure, and make the information available to all their constituents-in a searchable, sortable, publicly accessible database.

At the very least, personal financial disclosure statements should be scanned and images of them made readily available on taxpayer funded congressional Web sites for the American people to see. (Indeed, they're scanned into image files and stored on computers in the House.) By enacting this common sense reform, Congress would demonstrate not only its commitment to setting a high ethical standard but also an understanding that transparency is the only way to reach and maintain it.

0 Comments

The Winston-Salem Journal stands up for openness while Sen. Mitch McConnell and Republican Senators, including the two North Carolina Senators Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr, continue to block S.223 from passing in a clean, amendment-free fashion. McConnell and a few Republican Senators want to amend the bill to prevent its passage. The Winston-Salem Journal write that the objecting Senator, or Senators, should go "public with his or her objections." What McConnell and his cohort need to understand is that objecting to a bill may be a Senate tradition, "But to do so anonymously is cowardly, and to do so while professing not to be the blocker is deceitful." Tell Mitch McConnell - (202) 224-2541 - to release the names of the objectors and to make any and all amendments available to the public now.

0 Comments