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
-
Too Little, Too Late
The following appears in the National Journal’s new “lobbying experts” blog launched last week. I will be posting there regularly.
I’m what you might call a connoisseur of lobbying disclosure records. Over the years I’ve perused them when doing investigative research about any number of subjects, from lobbying around reform of the Food and Drug Administration to obscure real estate tax provisions. Instead of getting the who, the what, the why, the where, and the when of what actually happened, I typically end up extremely frustrated. The information available is always too little and comes too late.
First, in the “too little” department: it’s an open secret that the current exemption allowing people to avoid registering as a lobbyist if they spend less than 20 percent of their time involved in lobbying activities for a specific client means that there is a cadre of “stealth lobbyists” out there who are not reporting.
The most infamous example is Tom Daschle, who recently took a job as a senior policy adviser in the government affairs division of DLA Piper. Just as in his previous job at the firm Alston & Bird, Daschle is not expected to register as a lobbyist. Instead, he will simply be giving “advice” to clients. As my colleague Lisa Rosenberg (herself a lobbyist, for the Sunlight Foundation) pointed out recently, Daschle’s “frequent trips to the White House belie his claims that he is not attempting to influence policy on behalf of his clients. His clients, and their lobbyists, benefit from his access to key decision makers as well as his strategic advice on how best to influence lawmakers.” Until this loophole is closed, writes Rosenberg, “Daschle and untold numbers of former elected officials, corporate CEOs, and presidents of labor unions can act as stealth lobbyists–often with greater access and influence than the majority of registered lobbyists, and almost always without leaving a trace of what they are saying, who they are saying it to, and on who is paying them to say it.”
Then there’s the fact that even those who file as lobbyists are required to provide so little information. Consider this form filed by Clark & Associates for the firm’s work on behalf of the American Bankers Association. Here I see that the firm lobbied on the economic bailout bill–but all I can find out is that lobbyists contacted the “U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate.” There are, of course, 435 members of the House and 100 members of the Senate, and from this form I don’t have a clue which ones in particular received visits, phone calls, or other communications from these lobbyists. Lobbying disclosure rules must be strengthened to include more detailed information about whom lobbyists contacted.
Now on to the matter of “too late.” Right now lobbyists file their disclosure forms only once a quarter, often months after the lobbying actually happened which means journalists, bloggers, and researchers are suffering from a big disadvantage when trying to track influence on any given issue. Given today’s technology, there’s really no reason for this. As I wrote last week, the Sunlight Foundation’s vision of lobbying disclosure nirvana would be a central website, where lobbyists can file reports on their activities and the public can easily find what they report, at a maximum of 72 hours after a lobbying contact has occurred.
The public needs information about who is lobbying our government about what. But with the state of lobbying disclosure today, we’re not getting anything close to information on-line in real-time, the way it ought to be.
-
Daschle: Shadow Secretary & Health Care Lobbyist?
Despite his withdrawal from consideration for the Health and Human Services (HHS) cabinet position, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle remains a powerful voice in the health care debate. The New York Times reported over the weekend that Daschle still commands the ear of those at the White House and may be acting as a shadow HHS Secretary in health care discussions. But behind those Lafont Providence glasses and the genial Great Plains demeanor lies a list of health care clients that exposes a serious conflict of interest as the former senator attempts to influence policy.
Two months ago, I wrote a post on the health care clients of Daschle’s law firm, Alston & Bird. The list includes many powerful players who have organized on both sides of the health reform debate. Perhaps the most important client is UnitedHealth Corp., a powerful insurance company that has opposed the most controversial provision in the debate, the public option. The Times article notes this conflict:
Now the White House and Senate Democratic leaders appear to be moving toward a blueprint for overhauling the health system, centered on nonprofit insurance cooperatives, that Mr. Daschle began promoting two months ago as a politically feasible alternative to a more muscular government-run insurance plan.
It is an idea that happens to dovetail with the interests of many Alston & Bird clients, like the insurance giant UnitedHealth and the Tennessee Hospital Association. And it is drawing angry cries of accommodation from more liberal House Democrats bent on including a public insurance plan.
Below is a complete list of Alston & Bird’s health care clients culled from 1st quarter lobbying reports:
-
What am I reading today?
The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) reviewed all 50 state formulas for disclosing stimulus contracts and found that New Hampshire gets it right. “A POGO review of the procurement websites from all 50 states (plus DC) found that one state—New Hampshire—has been posting original scanned Recovery Act contracts. This provides taxpayers with unprecedented access to important details regarding government spending.”
Michael Scherer at the Time blog Swampland writes about Howard Dean’s public disclosures about his non-lobbyist consulting work when he appears on television in contrast to the non-disclosure by Tom Daschle, who appears on Sunday shows to discuss health care without revealing that he holds UnitedHealth Corp. in his portfolio at the law firm Alston & Bird.
Sunlight’s Bill Allison uses the newly minted FARA database to explore lobbying by the Cayman Islands to keep their tax safe haven safe.
At Open Congress, Donny Shaw notes a comment left on the bill page for H.R. 1207 , the audit the Federal Reserve bill, that suggests the recommended GAO audit be released to the public. The bill only requires the GAO to release the audit to members of Congress.
-
Lobbyists Daschle, Dole Release Health Care Plan; Do Not Note Health Care Clients of Their Law Firm
Today, former senators Tom Daschle and Bob Dole released a plan for health care reform that is being hailed a bipartisan way forward. Headlines blare about the Daschle/Dole plan for health care. But were these two to not have had illustrious careers in the Senate, the headlines would tell a far different story: “Health Care Lobbyists Release Health Care Plan.”
Both Daschle and Dole work for a major Washington, DC lobbying firm, Alston & Bird. Many of Alston & Bird’s major clients are from the health care sector including the American Hospital Association, HealthSouth Corp, and pharmaceutical companies Abbott Laboratories, Bayer, Celgene, and Mylan Laboratories. In total, Alston & Bird is currently representing 31 clients from the health care sector. Of the $2,730,000 reported income received from clients, nearly 50% of that, $1,070,000, comes from these 31 health care clients.
This looks like another benefit of the revolving door. You can release a legislative proposal from outside of Congress and the first thing anyone thinks of is your previous job and not your current one.
The following 31 companies and organizations are listed as health care sector clients of Alston & Bird:
Abbott Laboratories $30,000.00 Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care $40,000.00 American Assn of Nurse Anesthetists $30,000.00 American Clinical Laboratory Assn $10,000.00 American College of Gastroenterology $50,000.00 American Hospital Assn $20,000.00 American Orthotic & Prosthetic Assn $30,000.00 Anthem Inc $0.00 Bayer AG $30,000.00 Celgene Corp $90,000.00 Cltn of Full Service Community Hospitals $40,000.00 Covenant Health System $10,000.00 CSL Behring $30,000.00 CVS/Caremark Corp $20,000.00 Endo Pharmaceuticals $0.00 Fresenius Medical Care $40,000.00 Fundamental Health $0.00 Generic Pharmaceutical Assn $50,000.00 Giner Inc $20,000.00 Health Management Assoc $30,000.00 HealthSouth Corp $110,000.00 Humana Inc $0.00 Kidney Care Council $90,000.00 Lifescan $30,000.00 Mylan Laboratories $50,000.00 National Assn for Home Care $50,000.00 National Assn of Behavioral Health $20,000.00 Roche Group $30,000.00 Roho Group $50,000.00 Tennessee Hospital Assn $20,000.00 Vision Service Plan $50,000.00
-
Weekly Media Roundup – May 22, 2009
Here are a few of the more interesting media mentions of Sunlight and our friends and
grantees from this week:Thursday’s launch by the Obama administration of Data.gov, the repository for all the information the federal government collects, generated a number of good press mentions. Vivek Kundra, President Obama’s new Chief Information Officer, built and manages the Web site, which developers can access data to create applications for the Web and handheld devices. The Washington Post’s Kim Hart wrote about the launch and quotes Ellen Miller, Sunlight’s executive director, saying it “demonstrates the acceptance of the notion that providing raw data is inherent to establishing trust in agencies.” Ellen said that the administration is redefining public information. “To be truly public, it needs to be available online. That’s a dramatic shift.” Hart also quotes Patrice McDermott, director of OpenTheGovernment.org, saying most federal agencies have not traditionally emphasized openness. “It’s not what Congress has told them to do in the past, and it’s not their culture. There’s going to have to be some real pressure on agencies to do this.” Hart also mentions Sunlight Labs‘ Apps for America 2 contest, and writes that it is modeled after the Apps for Democracy contest started by Kundra when he was the District of Columbia’s chief technology officer. Richard Waters at the Financial Times (subscription required) wrote about the launch and the contest, and quotes Ellen saying the launch represents “a sea-change in how government views its information.”
Wired’s Kim Zetter and Wired Science’s Alexis Madrigal both have articles about Data.gov that mention Sunlight and the Apps for America 2 contest. Madrigal also quotes Ellen, “Data.gov says that our information is your information,” and that “it represents this enormous change in attitude about what public means. It means it’s online. It’s means it’s available. I think it’s a dramatic breakthrough in the role of government.”
Federal News Radio’s Jason Miller produced a story on Data.gov, and includes an mp3 of his interview with Kundra who mentions the Apps for America 2 contest. Chris Dorobek, co-anchor of Federal News Radio’s afternoon drive program, interviewed Ellen about the launch and posted the audio. Jon Gordon with American Public Media’s “Future Tense” interviewed Clay Johnson, Sunlight Labs’ director, about Data.gov. Clay said the site represents “a good first step” by the administration.
-
One More Post on Daschle, Revolving Door
This Feb. 2nd Newshour segment is from before Tom Daschle dropped out, but the discussion regarding the revolving door and President Obama’s reliance on Washington insiders between Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington’s Melanie Sloan and lawyer Kenneth Gross is well worth watching. It starts at around the 5:00 minute mark.
-
What We’ve Learned
So, Tom Daschle ended his bid to be Secretary of Health and Humans Services after a weekend of revelations showing that he had failed to pay taxes on a variety of things, most notably a driver provided to him by a venture capitalist, and because it was finally revealed that Daschle had been working in that netherworld of advising lobbyists for health companies on how and whom to lobby.
Now, perhaps Daschle would have survived the confirmation battle in the Senate and become HHS Secretary, but it is clear that his aformentioned hidden ties to the industry whose issues he was prepared to take the reins of at HHS pushed him into withdrawing his name for fears it would harm the President, himself, and the cause of health care reform. Ultimately, delayed transparency led Daschle to shame and to submit his notice of withdrawal.
What we’ve learned is that these things always come out. Everyone in Washington knew that Daschle was no different than a registered lobbyist for the health industry, just that he didn’t do anything that required his registration. You can see this Time article by Michael Scherer for more on this. Obviously, the problem is not solely that Daschle did these things, the temptation in Washington to cash in on personal connections is hard to avoid, but that there is not yet a system of transparency that reaches far enough to change the behavior of those trying to influence the affairs of state.
This system ought to include the expansion of the definition of a registered lobbyist to include those providing advice and consulting within lobbying firms. An interesting piece in Scherer’s Time piece notes that then-Sen. Obama pushed for the revolving door provisions in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act to be extended to include consulting and advising lobbying firms only to be rebuked by his fellow senators, who may have been thinking about their post-Senate employment possibilities. Also, the personal financial disclosures of these executive branch appointees should be readily available online for the public to examined. These are only a couple of changes that must happen.
Only by truly peeling back the layers of Washington that obscure the entitled and the enriched who exert influence behind the scenes can we begin to ensure that the government will be run in a way that protects the public trust over personal interests.
