The idea of far greater transparency in government affairs is spreading fast. How can you tell? Today’s Washington Times carries an op-ed by one of Washington’s top lawyers, Lanny Davis, that includes both a full-throated defense of the lobbying profession and an endorsement for “total transparency.”

Here’s a simple proposal:

Every lobbyist visiting a member of Congress or the executive branch to influence official action (the definition of lobbying) should first be required to sign in on an online, real-time computer (and thus, immediately accessible to all).

Information to be disclosed before the meeting should include the lobbyist’s name, the client represented, the amount paid by month or year for lobbying, the specific purpose of the meeting, the position to be taken by the lobbyist, the legislation to be discussed, the action to be requested (the “ask” or “asks,” to be updated after meeting), and the amount of current and prior campaign donations made by the client, the lobbyist and relatives associated with both.

Every time, every meeting. It’s as simple as that.

One of the biggest failures in lobbying transparency is the absence of any disclosure of actual meetings. The current state of transparency for lobbyists is poor. Lobbyists only have to file quarterly reports that do not detail with whom they are meeting, what they are meeting about, and what their client is seeking. Lobbyists are also only required to file semiannual reports detailing their contributions to lawmakers. All of this amounts to a less-than-satisfactory system of disclosure providing the public with an incredibly limited view into the workings of their government.

It’s heartening to see that some who travel in the highest circles of Washington lawyers and lobbyists, like Lanny Davis, are backing a more robust version of transparency. For another take on real lobbyist disclosure see Sunlight’s Transparency in Government Act.

2 Comments

The 2008 presidential campaign featured blistering attacks, particularly from the eventual victor Sen. Barack Obama, on Washington’s chief money-making industry. Lobbyists are now trying to assess where they stand in Washington with a reformer in the White House and an economic downturn that is now actually stretching onto K Street.

Most of the change that will occur on K Street relates to the partisan makeup of firms. With Republicans falling further into the minority, lobby firms will need fewer GOP lobbyists and more Democratic ones. Some changes are already underway with Comcast replacing a Republican as chief lobbyist with a former staffer of prominent Obama supporter Tom Daschle.

Despite the Politico’s suggestion that, “The repositioning highlights how little Washington is likely to change, despite all the anti-lobbyist rhetoric tossed around in the campaign,” lobby firms certainly fear what kind of access and what new reforms they could face under President Obama’s administration. If we had the sense of smell of a lion, we could smell the fear emanating from the monitor when reading this Congressional Quarterly article from today. This article is ridden with quotes from lobbyists not only attempting to sell themselves and their business to a new administration, but also trying to prebut the coming reforms and changes.

I sincerely hope that the promises of reform do not end at the ballot box as so many on K Street seem to be projecting. Further transparency requirements are needed to reel in the influence industry. A good place to start would be to enact the reforms contained in the Transparency in Government Act, available at PublicMarkup.org.

0 Comments

An Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch, a mental health parity bill, a package of tax break extensions, and tax breaks and relief for victims of natural disasters, specifically Hurricane Ike. These don’t sound like they have any relation to the relief of an financial crisis, but, as of today, they will all play a major role. The new massive bailout package — sorry, “rescue” package — introduced in the Senate includes all of these measures. The inclusion of these measures could help push the underlying Emergency Economic Stabilization Act through Congress or torpedo it by injecting inter-chamber politics into an already tense political situation.

At the heart of the tacked-on legislation is a combination of an AMT patch and tax break extensions for corporations and renewable energy investments. Senate Democrats, most prominently Sen. Max Baucus, believe that the inclusion of these measures will help draw the support of House Republicans who previously voted down Monday’s bailout bill. However, this measure is already drawing the ire of House Democrats, including Blue Dogs and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

The AMT/tax break extension package was previously passed by the Senate, but House leaders, pushed by Hoyer and the Blue Dogs, intended on shelving the proposal due to its failure to abide by pay-as-you-go rules (providing offsetting cuts to go with revenue reductions). The inclusion of the package in the bailout bill will revive the animus between the two Democratic factions. Hoyer has already stated that the inclusion of the “tax extenders” is “controversial” and was included only because “they thought that’s the only way they could get it passed.” Of course, the Blue Dogs, being prominent supporters of the bailout bill, may find themselves in a situation where this compromise is the best they can get.

Seeing as how every vote counts at this point — the bailout only needs 12 votes to pass in the House — the inclusion of the mental health parity legislation previously passed by the House could help sway one or two votes. The chief Republican cosponsor of the bill, Rep. Jim Ramstad, voted against the bailout bill on Monday. Also, one the bill’s seven cosponsors, Rep. Pete Stark, also voted against the bailout. The inclusion of the defining bill of Ramstad’s career, as he retires this year, could be enough to sway this one vote into the “yes” column.

In classic congressional fashion, the Senate has decided to use a crisis piece of legislation as a way to push through a massive package of other priorities forcing an inter-chamber factional battle to come to a head. The inclusion of this controversial legislation could also serve as a remedy to the current failure in the House.

Poison pill or appeasing antidote? We’ll wait and see.

4 Comments

As news spreads that a consensus Wall Street bailout plan is being finalized, and leaders negotiate between proposals submitted from the Treasury Department, Senator Dodd, Representative Barney Frank, and others, two separate conversations are taking place. One is public, as the nation struggles to evaluate the urgency of the economic situation, and to understand the best course of action.  The other, however, is not public, as the compromises and deal making — the real stuff of urgent policy-making — are held in the dark.

The Sunlight Foundation is calling on Congress to publish the proposed bailout legislation as soon as possible, to give constituents and lawmakers themselves as much time as possible to examine the specifics of the proposal before it’s voted on.  We will post the draft legislation to PublicMarkup.org as soon as possible, to give citizens a chance to weigh in on the proposal’s specifics.

Congress faces urgent pressure from the Administration and from constituents to act. Regardless of the course of action Congress ultimately chooses, this is a decision that must be made in full public view. If citizens don’t have a chance to evaluate the legislation, how can Congress possibly represent their constituents’ needs?

The need for sunlight is especially required for urgent or emergency legislation. All too often, Congress praises transparency as a democratic value, but violates it in practice. Any lack of transparency in consideration of this legislation would be especially ironic since lawmakers have blamed the current crisis on financial malfeasance that was hidden from public view.

We have called the relevant congressional committees and have asked for copies of the new consensus legislation.  As soon we get it, we’ll be posting the text of the legislation online at PublicMarkup.org.

Now more than ever,  Congress must represent the needs of all Americans, and to give everyone - citizens and lawmakers alike — a chance to participate actively in the legislative process.

Before the bailout proposal is considered by lawmakers, it must undergo an even more important test: evaluation and assessment by the public.

8 Comments

The consideration of the $700 billion bailout bill — now lovingly known as the Authorization for Use of Financial Force — has turned into a thriller as the clock winds down on the session of Congress (set to end on Friday) and the stability of markets and financial institutions. Lobbyists for large business trade groups are racing down tips and attempting to defuse unpalatable proposals, limits on executive compensation and bankruptcy relief for homeowners, like Jack Bauer would a nuclear device. According to The Hill, the Chamber of Commerce’s lobbyist Bruce Josten says, “If we don’t move quickly, we could be in the soup.”

One lobbyist is using a flow chart to track proposals, others are reading reports at 4 am. Red Bull sales are probably through the roof. One thing that’s for sure, these lobbyists, the one’s who have worked hard to prevent any kind of oversight of the financial system and the mortgage market leading up to this crisis, are now working to prevent anything punitive or helpful to those who’ve lost their homes in this mess.

Francis Creighton, vice president and chief lobbyist with the Mortgage Bankers Association: “Bankruptcy is such a divisive issue in this debate, and resurrecting bankruptcy right now is completely unproductive … This bill we are talking about is not a mortgage bill, not a housing bill. It’s supposed to address the threats to the entire economy.”

Steve Verdier, a lobbyist for the Independent Community Bankers Association (ICBA), on bankruptcy relief: “We are vigorously opposing that … If that happens, then the mortgage rates for other consumers are going to go up.”

American Banking Association in a letter to Congress: “Authorizing write-downs of mortgages by bankruptcy judges will increase the risks of mortgage lending at a time when the market is already struggling”

During the 2008 cycle the three trade groups represented by these individual lobbyists have spent $3.1 million on PAC contributions to congressional lawmakers. Over the same time period they’ve spent $8.9 million dollars on lobbying Congress. (Data from OpenSecrets.org) That amount of money gives them the access they need to get their message to Congress.

During this lobbying feeding frenzy, Congress should be asking themselves one simple question, “Should I be listening to the very people who helped cause this mess? Shouldn’t I try to listen to someone else?”

If lawmakers wanted to they could go to PublicMarkup.org and see what people are saying about each section of both the Dodd proposal and the Paulson proposal. It could be a useful way to have a discussion directly with people concerned about the bill, rather than the money merchants of K Street. Already, 81 comments have been left on the Dodd bill and 41 on the Paulson proposal.

4 Comments

Sunlight’s distributed effort at creating a model transparency bill - the Transparency in Government Act of 2008 - reached its next stage today. The revised version of the bill, found at PublicMarkup.org, is now open for public comment. The bill was initially opened for public comment back in March. New sections added to the bill thanks to public suggestions include improving oversight of the executive branch and provisions articulating the best methods for accessing legislative data.

I’m sure Sunlight’s John Wonderlich, who is leading this project, will be around here later to talk about the revisions and how working on a markup of a bill in an open, distributed manner has been.

Previous links about PublicMarkup.org and the Transparency in Government Act of 2008:

• PublicMarkup.org by Ellen Miller
• PublicMarkup.org’s First Week by John Wonderlich
• PublicMarkup.org at Web 2.0 Expo by John Wonderlich
• PublicMarkup.org Progress and Plan by John Wonderlich

0 Comments