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 24, 2009
Here are some of the more interesting media mentions of Sunlight and our friends and allies over the past week:
CQ Weekly’s Maura Reynolds wrote about the Obama administration’s successes and failures in achieving its transparency goals six months into the term. Reynolds quoted Ellen Miller, Sunlight’s director, about how many of their transparency initiatives are still in development and how the kinks are being worked out. “A default position that government data will be accessible to the public in machine-readable format is a huge step forward,” Ellen said. “Is it moving as fast as I’d like? Of course not. But I can be patient while this unfolds.” Ellen also commented on some of the administration’s initiatives, such as “town hall” meetings, that have been tightly controlled. “There is real transparency, and then there is transparency theater,” she said. “I can distinguish between the two.” Reynolds wrote that the more people expect the Internet to deliver the information they want, the more kinds of information they will expect to access that way. “It’s kind of a genie out of the bottle,” Ellen said. “The Internet has raised expectations. I fundamentally believe that the way technology pushes information out to the edges will have a powerful effect on the power structure.” Reynolds reports that open government advocates praise two federal Web sites, USAspending.gov, a site that tracks all federal spending and was set up as a result of a bill co-sponsored by then-Sen. Obama, and Data.gov, the site the new administration designed as a “one-stop shop for number crunchers that consolidates statistics across federal agencies in standard, machine-readable formats.” The article quotes Gary Bass, director of OMB Watch, saying the sites could be vehicles for connecting government performance to spending. “From the point of view of the average user, there has been nothing like this before. That is truly a credit to this administration.” Reynolds notes that it was OMB Watch’s FedSpending.org that served as the technical platform for USAspending.gov.
Despite the existence of rules requiring congressional lawmakers to disclose earmarks they request, rules do not exist requiring them to disclose items classified as “program support.” The Washington Post’s Carol Leonnig illustrates this problem with a report on how $160 million intended to help Mexico’s police buy U.S.-made first-responder radios was tucked into the voluminous congressional plan for U.S. military spending next year. Leonnig quotes Bill Allison, Sunlight’s senior fellow, “It kind of makes a mockery of the disclosure requirements we have. They will disclose the little things, the $1 million projects, but when you have the big-ticket items, you don’t have members willing to take responsibility for those.”
Stephanie Condon, writing at CBS News‘ “Political Hotsheet” column, cited a report from Taxpayers for Common Sense that found that lawmakers serving on the the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense included 1,080 earmarks worth $2.7 billion dollars in the fiscal-year 2010 defense appropriations bill they approved last week. The lawmakers specifically requested more than $1.6 billion in earmarks for their campaign contributors, entities who had donated nearly $1 million to the committee members.
-
Weekly Media Roundup – May 1, 2009
Here are a few of the more interesting media mentions of Sunlight and our friends and grantees from this week:David Herbert with the National Journal (subscription required) wrote about the grades new media experts from across the political spectrum gave the Obama administration’s Web presence. The experts gave WhiteHouse.gov an average grade of C+. Although they mostly see it as an improvement from the previous administration’s site, many noted that it remained a one-way forum and suggested it be opened to allow comments and other interactive features. Herbert quotes Ellen Miller, Sunlight’s executive director, “This occasional use of interactive tools” is impressive, but “90 percent of the time the site is pretty straightforward, as it was under [George W.] Bush.” Recovery.gov, the administration’s site where citizens can monitor the expenditure and use of recovery funds, fared even worse in the Journal’s poll, averaging a C. The most common gripe about the site, Herbert writes, is that it’s “the view from 30,000 feet,” as Micah Sifry, senior technology advisor for Sunlight and Personal Democracy Forum (PDF) co-founder, told him. Without providing on-the-the ground details, Recovery.gov offers taxpayers few tools for staying on top of where their money is going, reviewers said. Recovery.gov has competition in the form of privately-operated Recovery.org, which has “more granular data and a real search tool, which one assumes we’ll eventually see on Recovery.gov,” Micah explains. “I don’t think it’s fair to compare this site to other Web sites yet, as it’s just weeks old,” Micah added. “Let’s take another look in three to six months, OK?”
Chris Lefkow with Agence France-Presse gained a different take by interviewing academics, technology analysts and nonpartisan groups on the administration’s technology efforts. Lefkow writes that they all said the first “tech president” is off to a good start. Lefkow quotes John Wonderlich, Sunlight’s policy director, “their first pronouncements are very encouraging,” and added that the challenge, however, is going to be the implementation. Andrew Resiej, Sunlight’s other senior technology advisor and PDF co-founder, said the administration been doing as much as it can to fulfill its promises in regards to transparency and technological innovation. “However they’ve been constrained by decades of industrial-age rules and regulations and procurement protocols that are handicapping the speed at which they can implement that vision,” he said.
-
Memo to Congress: Open a Wider Window on Contractors
With the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Federal Housing Administration and the Treasury combining to promise trillions (as much as $7.7 trillion to be precise, but who, other than Bloomberg News, is counting?) with little or no transparency or disclosure for the bulk of the money, it’s easy to lose sight of the relative nickels and dimes doled out in contracts awarded by federal agencies to private firms — all $430 billion of it.
The extent to which contractors interact with government is breathtaking — to give on example, the army field manual setting forth the rules contractors must abide by on the battlefield was written by Military Professional Resources Inc., a government contractor. And abuses in the system have been well-documented: Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham went to jail for steering federal contracts in exchange for bribes; Darleen Druyun, an Air Force procurement officer, earned her prison stripes by swinging a sweetheart tanker deal for Boeing before leaving the Pentagon for a sweetheart job with…Boeing.
Sites like FedSpending.org and the Federal Contractor Misconduct Database bring a little transparency and accountability to the process, but there’s far more information that Congress should require that the federal government provide.
Once upon a time, contractors had to publicly disclose when they went outside the normal procurement process and hired lobbyists to attempt to win contracts. Bringing back those disclosures (which required lobbyists to list those they were meeting with on behalf of clients) and integrating those disclosures with the data available on USASpending.gov (FedSpending’s less robust government cousin) would be one place to start. Clearly identifying which contracts satisfy presidential and congressional earmarks would be useful as well. Linking up contract awards in USASpending with archived solicitation notices in FedBizOpps, the government’s official contracting opportunities database, would also provide the public with a fuller picture of what the government is buying. (In USASpending, a Blackwater State Department contract is described as being for “protective services – Iraq.” Fedbizopps provides somewhat more detail on what a security contract might entail.)
Government can’t do its work without contractors — everything from the security of State Department officials to answering requests for documents under the Freedom of Information Act have been outsourced. But government can require more transparency from contractors and the federal agencies they work for — keeping them open keeps the system honest.
-
Federal Contract Spending
Scott Amey at the Project for Government Oversight’s POGO blog writes about being positively surprised by one thing he found at USAspending.gov, the government site modeled after OMB Watch’s FedSpending.org. 2007 data has been replaced by updated FY 2008 and 2009 totals. (This is shocking on two fronts. The government is usually years behind in reporting contract spending dollars.)
But Scott’s more shocked to find that the government spent over $510 billion on goods and services in FY 2008. “And if history repeats, this total will increase by an additional $10-$20 billion as agencies report additional information,” he writes. That amount would rank as the 25th largest GDP in the world, he figures.
In the shadow of the huge multi-trillion dollar financial bailout, all these huge numbers are mind numbing. Federal contract spending is out of control, and deserving of much more oversight and transparency, don’t you think?
-
Good But Not Good Enough: USASpending.org
Gautham Nagesh, writing at NextGov, reports on how USASpending.gov is failing to provide up-to-date information on government contracts and grants.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 mandated that OMB develop and maintain a site providing grant and contract information on all organizations receiving more than $25,000 from the feds. (Modeled after OMB Watch’s FedSpending.org, the site launched last December.) Nagesh reports that some agencies, including the Homeland Security, Labor, Transportation and Veterans Affairs departments have not updated their reports since last year. The agencies are supposed to issue a report monthly outlining who receives the funds and the amount of grants. Sen. Tom Coburn, one of the sponsors of the new law, has rightly called out the agencies for not adhering to the new requirements.
-
Sunshine States
When Congress passed and the president signed into law the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (two years ago this month) they started a trend that has swept well beyond Washington. According to the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL), state legislatures are starting to emulate the new federal law that requires access through a free and searchable Web site to details on all federal spending.
Since 2007, 11 states (Hawaii, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Washington) have established, via legislation or executive order, free and searchable Web sites that give access to state spending. And 24 other states are working on it, with more than half introducing spending transparency bills this year. B2G Exchange blog wrote in May that transparency Web sites were the “hottest new trend” in state government. SunshineReview.org is a good place to monitor progress of government transparency at the state and local level.
Kansas was the first to establish a transparency Web site by passing the Kansas Taxpayer Transparency Act in July 2007, and launching KanView on February 29th of this year. The site is expected to cost about $40 million but it is estimated that it will generate $1 billion in savings. The champion of the new site, State Rep. Kasha Kelley of Arkansas City, Kan., has since become something of a traveling evangelist for government transparency. National and regional organizations, such as NCSL, the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Illinois Policy Institute, have invited Kelley to make presentations at their meetings and conferences. The federal Office of Management and Budget invited her to attend the unveiling of USAspending.gov, the federal transparency site. Because of Kelley’s transparency work, the anti-tax group Americans for Tax Reform named her a “Friend of the Taxpayer.”
And last month, the Columbus, Ohio, -based Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, a nonpartisan think tank devoted to small government in the state, launched its Center for Transparent and Accountable Government. The center says it will be collecting and posting online state and local government budgets, employee contracts, public records policies and other information. “Transparency and open government crosses ideologies and is equally supported, and equally opposed, by both major political parties,” said Mike Maurer, the center’s new director, a former statehouse reporter. He also said that Ohioans deserve the same type of transparency from their state and local governments that USAspending.gov provides at the federal level. In conjunction with its launch, the center issued a white paper gauging Ohio’s current level of openness, finding that the state “is behind its peers in government transparency.” They are asking candidates running for state office to take a transparency pledge. And they’ve set up OhioSunshine.org, an open government wiki. “The legitimacy of Ohio government rests on the consent of the governed, but that consent doesn’t mean much when so much of government occurs hidden, or deeply buried,” Hansen said. “Twenty-First Century information technology should be applied to draw back the curtain that stands between government and the people.”
Amen to that.
The explosion of open government activism in the states is a very encouraging legacy of the 2006 transparency act.
-
Corporate Profits Follow Power
Over the weekend, Tim Harford at Slate asked an interesting question: “How much do Republican-leaning corporations benefit from Republican political success?” His answer? “A lot!” Harford points to studies conducted by financial economists about the success of corporations with clear Republican and Democratic leanings. (The researchers defined a company’s party preference by whether the board of directors had members who were former members of Congress and/or served in an administration — all from one party.)
After narrowing the group of corporations they were looking at the researchers examined the share price of these politically partisan corporations at two points; the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Dec. 13, 2000 selecting George W. Bush the winner of the presidential race over Al Gore, and the May 2001 power shift in the Senate from GOP to Democratic control created by U.S. Sen. Jim Jeffords’ decision to leave the Republicans and become a Democratic-caucusing independent.
