Sunlight Foundation

I'll begin this post as I increasingly find myself doing, with a tweet: 

I wonder if folks at the @sunfoundation realize they’re creating a system where only billionaires can get elected

That's the question I posed to the Sunlight Foundation, whose good work on government transparency is marred by their vocal support for draconian campaign finance regulations. It's a fair question in light of self-funders steamrolling "career politicians" / "lifelong public servants" (pick your poison) in recent primaries.

Their response on their blog yesterday was a nonsequitur on the DISCLOSE Act. No, my specific beef is not with the DISCLOSE Act but the entire regime put in place the original "campaign finance reform" of FECA more than 30 years ago, and its subsequent bastardization that has given us the kind of influence peddling that the Sunlight Foundation now rails against. 

It is this regime of strict limits -- $2,400 per individual to a campaign -- that creates a massive de-facto advantage for self-funders who can pour in anything they want. 

In the past, I've noted the weak record of self-funded candidates actually getting elected. And I've noted, in general terms, the drawbacks of said candidates. The Sunlight Foundation's own analysis shows a low, but rising, success rate for self-funders -- from 9.4% getting elected in 2002 to 21.5% in 2008. 

But 2010 by any measure looks to be a watershed year for self-funders. Just look at Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina in California, Rick Synder in Michigan, Bill Haslam in Tennessee, possibly Rick Scott and Jeff Greene in Florida, maybe Mark Dayton in Minnesota, and in today's Connecticut primary, quite possibly three self-funded nominees for the top two statewide offices: Linda McMahon, Ned Lamont, and Tom Foley. 

There's no doubt that this trend is helped along by public disgust at the current Congress and Administration, and no contesting the fact that the politicians seem to have made such a hash of things that it seems like political novices can do no worse. William F. Buckley's dictum that he'd rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book remains as relevant today as ever. And it's not to say that primaries won by self-funders can't produce a good result (Synder and Haslam -- a current mayor -- seem to be good examples). 

But for each Rick Synder, there are other candidates with baggage so great that they wouldn't survive a primary in an instant if they had to raise it $2,400 at a time. Think Linda McMahon, the WWE, and steroids, or virtual nobody Jeff Greene who profited off the very credit default swaps that are at the heart of Florida's real estate collapse. 

Though the political winds might be at their back, self-funders have a massive structural advantage: in the context of a campaign, they are the only ones who can exercise their Constitutional rights under Buckley v. Valeo with unlimited contributions to a campaign. (There is surely an equal protection case in there somewhere, right?) 

The situation is made worse in states that are models for strict campaign finance regulations and public financing: Florida and Connecticut. In Florida, you can only give $500 a pop to a statewide candidate, but outside political entities who don't disclose their donors openly coordinate with cash-strapped campaigns. In the realm of the truly bizarre, the state party can also subsidize any campaign's infrastructure costs to get around these limits. Connecticut also has public financing and contribution limits, and we may well get an all-self-funder race for Governor today. 

Let's look, by contrast, at states like Texas and Pennsylvania, which don't have any contribution limits in statewide elections. Is there a serious case to be made that their system is worse, or more corrupt, than Florida's -- where money is funneled through shadowy outside groups precisely because the ambit of disclosed campaign activity is so small? 

In Texas, all major candidates have an opportunity to fund their campaigns at a level appropriate to the modern campaign, thus making the cost of entry for self-funders very high. That doesn't mean they don't try, but they must at least compete on a level playing field because their opponents have the theoretical ability to draw unlimited dollars from elsewhere. 

Which gets us back to what the Sunlight Foundation wants to talk about: the DISCLOSE Act. If we actually had a sane campaign finance system, there would have been no need for the Citizens United decision, because this activity would be happening in a fully open and disclosed fashion under federal campaign laws. It is only under a regime of strict limits that clever tricks that hide where money is really coming from begin to take root. PACs, soft money, 527s and the widespread use of 501(c)4's for political activity are all functions of campaign finance "reform." 

Paradoxically, it is only when money becomes a scarce resource in a campaign that where it comes from matters most. I for one would much rather have a system where an individual can give a candidate $100,000, fully disclosed, rather than the one we have now where members of Congress have to grovel before industry PAC representatives for 20 measly $5,000 checks. 

If there are reform-based objections to this, let's hear them. And let's also hear an answer to threshold question: how are things in Austin, Texas or Harrisburg, Pennsylvania worse today than in Washington, D.C.? 

(This was cross posted from the Sunlight Foundation)

More than a million spectators gathered before the Capitol on a frosty January afternoon to witness the inauguration of Barack Obama, who promised in his campaign to change Washington’s mercenary culture of lobbyists, special interest influence and backroom deals. But within a few months of being sworn in, the President and his top aides were sitting down with leaders from the pharmaceutical industry to hash out a deal that they thought would make health care reform possible.

Over the following months, pharmaceutical industry lobbyists and executives met with top White House aides dozens of times to hammer out a deal that would secure industry support for the administration's health care reform agenda in exchange for the White House abandoning key elements of the president's promises to reform the pharmaceutical industry. They flooded Congress with campaign contributions, and hired dozens of former Capitol Hill insiders to push their case. How they did it—pieced together from news accounts, disclosure forms including lobbying reports and Federal Election Commission records, White House visitor logs and the schedule Sen. Max Baucus releases voluntarily—is a testament to how ingrained the grip of special interests remains in Washington.

In the 2008 campaign, Obama declared his intention to include all stakeholders as he sought to reform the nation's health care system, but also supported key Democratic health reform policies. Among these were several that targeted the pharmaceutical industry: Allowing re-importation of drugs from first world countries with lower drug prices and providing Medicare with negotiating authority over prescription drug prices in the recently enacted Part D program. These weren't just promises, Obama had already voted for both of them as a senator in 2007. (Roll Call Vote 132 and Roll Call Vote 150.)

Set to carry out this agenda were two Capitol Hill veterans, schooled in the monied Washington culture, chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and deputy chief of staff Jim Messina. Emanuel was a former fundraiser, Clinton administration official, investment banker and member of the Democratic leadership in Congress. Messina was the former campaign manager and chief of staff to the powerful Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus. Both were known for their unparalleled legislative abilities.

Crossposted from Sunlight Foundation

Reps. Baird and Culberson introduced legislation today that would shine more sunlight on the most fundamental work of Congress. Their bill, H. Res. 554, would require that all non-emergency legislation be posted online, in its final form, 72 hours before consideration. The bill is not a panacea for all that ails Congress, but if enacted, it will stave off many congressionally created debacles before they become law.

Most citizens, for example, would have supported amending the economic stimulus bill to remove the provision allowing AIG executives to receive retroactive bonuses. The average person probably would have preferred to let the judicial system work rather than have Congress give immunity from lawsuits to telecommunications companies that participated in a controversial wiretapping scheme. Workers hoping to retire on their 401(k) investments might have liked to have some serious analysis of whether credit default swaps ought to be regulated. And just about everyone benefit from a check on questionable and wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars.

Back in December, I wrote about the need for the Right to use an "agenda of equal opportunity" to look beyond simple proposals involving government transparency and start thinking about wide-scale proposals for earmark, budget, bureaucratic and tax reform. Well, it looks like simple transparency proposals are something some Republicans on Capitol Hill should start with.

Big kudos today to Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska (yes, I am giving praise to a Democrat) who has decided to post his daily schedule on his new Senate website, as he promised during his campaign. Beginning with this month, Begich is archiving his schedule on his site and is making it searchable. The Sunlight Foundation encouraged other lawmakers to follow Begich's lead and "provide a similar archive of daily meetings." Throughout his terms as mayor of Anchorage, Begich would post responses to comments under his own name on the Anchorage Daily News's Alaska Politics Blog. I'm sure some on his staff went nuts over it, but it shows that he's willing and disciplined enough to communicate with his constituents, one-on-one, in new ways.

Unfortunately, some aren't so open, even to meeting those that want to support the conservative cause. A couple months ago, through a senior staffer, I invited a Republican senator (who shall go unnamed at this point) to the Heritage Foundation's Conservative Bloggers Briefing. What was the answer I received? I was told that it wouldn't be a good idea for the Senator to meet with bloggers in an open setting, out of the fear that he/she might get attacked. I was disappointed, but not surprised. Many on Capitol Hill, and other lawmakers, out of an abundance of caution refuse to communicate early and often, and make themselves, and their actions, more transparent.

In a world where online reputation management is now an enormously large part of reputation management, taking a few risks by being more open is both necessary and reaps large rewards. The proof? It's working at the state level. Pennsylvania House Republican leader Sam Smith recently released a 12-point government reform plan, which includes dollar one reporting of campaign contributions, a searchable database for all state spending, and limiting state contractors from using non-public information for their own gain.

I know it's a message that has been repeated by many who blog here, but it's worth repeating: while we're in the minority, the Right needs to hold Democrats accountable while we come up with new solutions to reform government. We can kill those two birds with one stone: more transparency initiatives.

We welcome the Sunlight Foundation for a post on S. 482, which would end the antiquated practice of Senators submitting their campaign finance forms to the Secretary of the Senate, and escaping the kind of easily searchable electronic disclosure required of House and Presidential candidates. -Patrick 

The Senate is not required to file their campaign finance reports with the FEC electronically.  The Sunlight Foundation believes these reports should be online in a as soon as possible so people can see who is contributing to candidates’ coffers before Election Day.  Earlier this year Sen. Feingold introduced Senate Bill 482, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act would require the Senate to file their campaign donation forms electronically. To build support for this bill we launched the Pass 482 campaign to get senators to understand how important it is for them to file their reports electronically so we the people can see them in a timely manner.  Right now the Senate can file on paper, which has to be sent to the FEC, and then the paper copies are sent to a company to be entered into a computer.  This is a waste of time and money.  The House, presidential candidates, and PACs have had to file electronically for 10 years the Senate should not be an exception.

This bill has no public opposition, and has 28 cosponsors. However, we want to build support for the bill because Sen. Pat Roberts from Kansas is rumored to want to add an amendment to this bill that would require organizations filing ethics complaints against senators to disclose their donors. This amendment has nothing to do with electronic filing and should be a stand alone bill and would block that passage of this non controversial bill.

Please call your senators and ask them to support S. 482. It’s time transparency is taken seriously by the Senate. This is a concrete step that can make it easier for everyone to get important information to voters.

 *Full Disclosure

I’m the online organizer for the Sunlight Foundation.

The Sunlight Foundation is a non-partisan non-profit dedicated to using the power of the Internet to catalyze greater government openness and transparency.

nthompson(at)sunlightfoundation(dot)com

Watch this video from the Sunlight Foundation's Read the Bill project:

Read The Bill from Sunlight Foundation on Vimeo.

It is not an accident that there are so many Republicans -- John Boehner, Jeb Hensarling, and Ted Poe -- in this, and that the Democrats -- Brian Baird and Bobby Scott -- are Democrats who are sometimes gettable on Republican votes.

Transparency is an issue that Republicans will win every time in the war of ideas, and the House Democrats are already uncomfortable.

Just last week, Blue Dogs and liberals like Peter DaFazio asked for more regular order. The Democrats are exposed. The Democrats know it.

Now it is time for Republicans to stand up and win this fight once and for all.

Conversations like this are important to have, because they can help point the way to areas of bi-partisan agreement and cooperation.  Transparency is not a Left/Right issue; the coalition against transparency consists of 536 elected politicians in Washington, DC, and the favor-seekers that orbit them.   Breaking that chokepoint will require Left/Right collaboration.

The Sunlight Foundation's Ellen Miller responds to my post yesterday regarding the routine Congressional bribery that doesn't seem to attract the attention that Gov. Blagojevich's attempted bribery received.  She doesn't think "the horse trading Congress conducts" is "quite the same kettle of fish" as the personal profit of the Blagojevich, Duke Cunningham or Abscam scandals, but says transparency would help deal with both problems...

This is where more transparency is key to combating corruption. Openness is not only the cure for the sickness; it’s a prophylactic that åcould prevent the illness in the first place.

Take Jon’s hobbyhorse  –  earmarks. The practice of earmarks might not be a problem…or the problem just might be the lack of transparency. Suspicions of quid pro quos is all too strong where the process is opaque and there is huge potential for corruption. If the decisions were made in the light of day, I suspect there would be far less abuse.

I think we're mostly in agreement.  Congressional horse-trading - "I'll vote for your pelf if you'll vote for mine" - isn't quite the same as trading votes for personal gain.  However, I don't think it's necessarily a categorical difference, either.  Earmarks often do benefit the politician personally, whether as a de facto campaign contribution or by giving more power and prestige to the politician. That's less overtly outrageous, but still a serious ethical problem.

While negotiation has a place, the implicit extortion that goes on in omnibus bills or in the decisions about what makes out of committee in the first place lead to very sub-optimal decisions.  It's hard to see how that kind of bartering results in good collective decision-making.

This is not representative democracy, it is legislative collusion.

As Ellen Miller wrote, more transparency could help resolve these problems.  Ideally, transparency would improve the decision-making processes.

For instance, each Senator/Representative should be required to vote (even just a simple box-check) on each individual earmark/line item, providing (a) specific legislative approval for each project, and (b) legislator accountability for each vote.  If legislators have to evaluate and make a yes/no decision on each project, you can expect much better oversight of earmarks.  You could also expect many fewer earmarks, as we discover that Iowa rainforests don't turn out to be compelling national projects with overwhelming legislative support.

Procedural transparency and line item budgeting would improve the decision-making process.  Without it, we'll continue to have omnibus bills that act as a trojan horse for corruption and deal-making.

This is the sort of thing we could work together to achieve.  The result would benefit everybody...except, perhaps, those 536 politicians and the favor-seekers surrounding them.

Transparency is one area where the Right an Left should be working together.  Fortunately, it's also something that President-elect Obama has promised to improve.  So far, his transition team has been doing it pretty well.   How well he does it will depend, in large part, on the incentives involved; in particular, the prioritization of transparency will depend on how easy (or hard) the Right makes it for Democrats to improve transparency. 

The Sunlight Foundation's John Wonderlich* notes a couple pieces of very good news from the income administration...

The Obama transition team released two new policies this week, a Creative Commons license and a radical disclosure policy. These changes don’t just signal a new relationship to the public, but also create a paradigm shift in how government manages information, and could lead to much bigger things to come from the administration. Requirements for affirmative disclosure mov

e the onus of dissemination to the government (unlike FOIA, which relies on citizen requests), and might just revolutionize the way our government views its communications. [...]

First, the transition team changed its copyright policy, and is now publishing under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. [...]

Next, the transition team introduced their Seat at the Table feature. At first glance, “Your Seat at the Table” might look like a kitschy PR portal. What is the entire change.gov site supposed to be, if not a seat at the table? A closer look, however, reveals that this specific feature is in fact different from the rest of the site — it’s the result of a significant policy change.

The Sunlight Foundation has much more at their post.   For now, this is a very positive start.  In the past, transparency has sometimes been used as a partisan tool to use against an opponent - or, worse, as a way to hold the activity of community members against the community creator.  If we want to see more of this, though, we should focus on holding the Obama administration accountable for their promises, not for how their community is used by other people. 

* I work with the Sunlight Foundation on their Open Senate Project.

Can you read and comprehend a 451 page bill in under 24 hours? No.Well, then you probably wouldn't want to be a member of Congress right now. The Senate just released their 451-page version of the Wall Street bailout bill and expect members to vote tonight. If our elected representatives are going to be tossing hundreds of billions of dollars around, the least they can do is read what their passing.

If you care about your representatives reading and understanding this legislation before they walk down that aisles of the Senate chamber for their "Yeas" and "Nays" please join the Sunlight Foundation in their petition to urge congressmen to allow a full 72 hours period to pass before a vote is held on the bill. A bill of this magnitude requires 72 hours for the public and their elected representatives to understand, discuss, and debate the myriad proposals squashed into one bill.

You can find and sign the petition here.
 

The Sunlight Foundation has long been a supporter of requiring all legislation to be posted online for at least 72 hours prior to a vote.

In support of this ideal, Sunlight has also posted copies of all of the proposed legislation to PublicMarkup.org, where the legislation is available for public review and comment. The current is Senate bill will be up for comment before the Senate votes today.

The current bailout legislation is only one example in the egregious practice of passing bills that have barely seen the light of day before votes have been cast. Just last week, a 1,000+ page continuing resolution, costing $630 billion, passed the House within a day of its introduction. Earlier this year, the Farm Bill, totaling a whopping 1,700+ pages, slipped through the House in under 24 hours. The Farm Bill was introduced on May 22nd and passed on May 22nd.

At some point the public has to stand up and demand that our lawmakers know what on earth they're voting for. Now seems an appropriate time.

Join in asking your member of Congress to  read this massive bill before they cast their vote. Let the bill be public for 72 hours!
 

(Disclosure- I am the online organizer and outreach coordinator for the Sunlight Foundation)