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
-
Quick Links in the Morning
CQ Politics reports that health care related PACs accounted for the top or second highest source of contributions for 15 of the top 18 congressional leaders in the House involved in the health care debate.
Apparently, the $80 billion cost savings that the pharmaceutical industry agreed to with the Obama administration came with a price. In return, the White House promised to protect the industry from further attempts to extract cost savings from them including allowing the government to negotiate drug prices. Now we know what those trips to the White House were all about.
The House Selecte Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming is investigating the forged letters sent to three congressmen by a grassroots lobbying firm on behalf of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). ACCCE has been trying to distance themselves from Bonner & Associates, the firm in question, and has denounced the letters. In a new letter sent by Chair Ed Markey, ACCCE is questioned as to why they did not act on the forged letters after they discovered their existence on June 24, two days prior to the vote on the cap and trade bill.
A new hire by the State Department may exploit a loophole in the administration’s lobbying ban.
The Washington Post has a useful interactive graphic to compare the various versions of health care reform in Congress.
-
When Lobbying is Fraud
Sunlight has no stated position on grassroots lobbying disclosure, but I thought that this story was worth flagging as I’d imagine it is the clearest cut argument for such disclosure:
As U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello was considering how to vote on an important piece of climate change legislation in June, the freshman congressman’s office received at least six letters from two Charlottesville-based minority organizations voicing opposition to the measure.
The letters, as it turns out, were forgeries.
“They stole our name. They stole our logo. They created a position title and made up the name of someone to fill it. They forged a letter and sent it to our congressman without our authorization,” said Tim Freilich, who sits on the executive committee of Creciendo Juntos, a nonprofit network that tackles issues related to Charlottesville’s Hispanic community. “It’s this type of activity that undermines Americans’ faith in democracy.”
The faked letter from Creciendo Juntos was signed by “Marisse K. Acevado, Asst Member Coordinator,” an identity and position at Creciendo Juntos that do not exist.
The person who sent the letter has not been identified, but he or she was employed by a Washington lobbying firm called Bonner & Associates.
It turns out that this isn’t the first time that Bonner & Associates has forged letters on an issue. In terms of disclosure, Bonner & Associates has not filed a lobbying disclosure report since 2001, so we have no clue which client is paying the firm to forge letters and lie to lawmakers.
This reminds me of a story that got the whole lobbying disclosure train rolling back in the 1930s (lobbying disclosure as an issue had been around since the late 19th century, but only limited action was taken until the 1930s). During debate over the Public Utility Holding Company Act, a bill to regulate utility companies, there was serious concern over the lobbying efforts of the industry. Sen. Hugo Black, a long time critic of industry lobbying efforts and a future Supreme Court justice, set up an investigatory committee to examine efforts by the utility companies to block the bill’s passage. Black’s investigation was aided by a tip from Congressman Dennis Driscoll of upstate New York. Driscoll became suspicious when he received 800 telegrams in opposition to the bill, in alphabetical order, as if read from the phone book, from the residents of one town in his district. As it turned out, Associated Gas & Electric of Ithaca, New York paid an employee to “develop” one thousand telegrams to send to the congressman. This revelation of outright forgery helped push the bill to victory and necessitated a new provision in the bill: the disclosure of paid lobbying for all utility holding companies.
Perhaps someone might want to look into the despicable efforts of Bonner & Associates to trick lawmakers. Who knows what else is out there?
-
Bailout Lobbying, Grassroots, and PACs
If ever there was a doubt that campaign contributions effect the votes of lawmakers, look no further than today’s Op-Ed from Amy Showalter in Roll Call. Showalter is the President of the Showalter Group, providing advice to corporations and trade associations on how to leverage grassroots pressure and PAC contributions in their lobbying efforts. Showalter’s Op-Ed attempts to reveal why certain lawmakers changed their votes on the recent bailout legislation. In doing so, Showalter winds up higlighting the seedy behavior of feeding campaign contributions to lawmakers in exhange for votes and the stealth nature of grassroots lobbying. On PAC contributions she writes:
Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.), who faced one of the toughest re-election fights in the House, told the Associated Press that he changed his mind after he received telephone calls from General Motors Corp. chief executive officer G. Richard Wagoner Jr. and other auto and corporate executives. “I’ve never talked to as many bank presidents in my life, over my entire life,” he said.
Knollenberg has received $131,500 from GM since he started serving in Congress in 1993, according to Federal Election Commission records, illustrating another “predictor of influence success.” Our survey showed that giving a legislator the maximum allowable political action committee contribution is a predictor of persuasion success.
Lobbyists representing the housing, financial, auto and other business sectors pushed hard for the bailout bill. Several of the lawmakers who changed their minds have received campaign contributions from those industry PACs.
Schmidt has received $70,100 from American Financial Group Inc., a Cincinnati-based insurance holding company, and $16,500 from the American Bankers Association since she was elected to Congress in 1989.
Rep. Judy Biggert (R) was the only Illinois lawmaker to change her mind about the bailout package. Since she began representing her suburban Chicago district in 1989, she has received $45,000 from the National Association of Realtors, $39,500 from the National Automobile Dealers Association and $37,548 from the ABA.
Most lawmakers say they aren’t influenced by campaign contributions, but the recent bailout votes suggest otherwise. We found that the most successful influence attempts typically include campaign contributions. In other words, a PAC contribution represents “exchange” and cements relationships.
While campaign contributions do have to be disclosed to the public, they are only disclosed in quarterly filing reports. This prevents the type of real-time oversight that could be occuring if these “exchanges” were made available to the public as they happened.
Showalter also emphasizes the need for lawmakers to here from “key influentials” in their district. These are often business leaders or small business owners who can be engaged in a grassroots lobbying campaign organized by trade associations. After the initial failure of the bailout bill in Congress, the business community, along with AARP, began a huge grassroots campaign to get business owners to call their congressmen and senators to push for passage of the bill. That grassroots push provided the many examples that Showalter uses in her Op-Ed to show the importance of constituent communications and likely pushed the bill to its ultimate, overwhelming success.
While coalitions that often engage in this type of manufactured grassroots pressure are required to disclose their activities under the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, the actual effort of grassroots lobbying is still left untouched by disclosure requirements. In the world according to Showalter, a pro at influencing lawmakers, the best ways to get to a lawmaker’s heart are still through means not fully policed by disclosure laws.
