Stephen Nichols Live at Invesco Field

Stephen Nichols, live from Invesco Field (the site of Obama’s soon-to-come acceptance speech)!

VoteGopher Comes Back With More Convention Analysis Using the VoterWatch Player!

See Sen. Joe Biden’s speech, as VoteGopher fact checks Biden’s foreign policy statements and claims!  Want to use the player on your blog?  ! 

Stephen Nichols’ Live Blog of Hillary Clinton’s Convention Speech!

VoterWatch’s Transparency Recap: A Review of Recent Stories

By Danielle Lanzet, VoterWatch Staff

The Department Of Justice remains in the process of adapting the Attorney General Guidelines that reign over FBI investigatory procedure. Whereas the FBI must currently possess some "reasonable suspension" of criminality to further investigate and open a full inquiry, the new Guidelines would sanction for the FBI to assess potential criminality without a single lead. In expanding such, an FBI agent investigating under the new Guidelines would obtain the same degree of power that was previously reserved only for a full-blown investigation. No longer would a FBI agent require sufficient evidence to follow or observe a person of interest. The Center for Democracy and Technology firmly avowed, "the new AG Guidelines permit conduct the original AG Guidelines were supposed to prevent."

In making the Attorney General Guidelines more far-reaching and extensive, the focus appears to shift away from the government and toward the populace. The Center for Democracy and Technology exclaimed:

DOJ properly agreed to a request from Senators Leahy and Specter to hold off on issuing new Guidelines until after FBI Director Muller testifies at an oversight hearing on September 17. September 17 is Constitution Day — the 221st anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution. Now, it’s up to Congress to use the hearing to send a message to the Attorney General that any change in the Guidelines governing FBI investigations should respect the Constitution by ensuring that investigative resources Congress has provided to the FBI be focused on criminals and terrorists, not on everyone else.

The new Attorney General Guidelines would likely bulldoze through the amount of red tape. However, the Senate Judiciary Committee, on the other hand, possesses little success in passing through such a bureaucratic roadblock, which further infringes and diminishes Congress’s oversight power. The Senate Judiciary Committee must jump through fire to potentially, not necessarily, obtain access to critical Justice Department record concerning interrogation, detention, and torture. Secrecy News provides an enlightening look at the situation with personal feedback from Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) below:

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) explained, "after more than five years of requests, we have only recently received access to redacted versions of OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) legal opinions related to the CIA’s interrogation program. The failure to provide other documents that we have sought repeatedly, however, leaves us without basic facts that are essential to this Committee’s ability to conduct its oversight responsibilities."

The Senate Judiciary Committee has yet to possess the requested material but set a deadline for the acquisition of the data for Friday, August 29 at 10:00 AM. However, the Senate Judiciary Committee did not extrapolate on the proceeding action if the material fails to surface.

Less than a month after being instituted, the Scheduled Departure program – which allowed a non-criminal illegal alien to surrender to avoid arrest and detention – flopped. The government spent just over $40,000 to advertise the program with the hope that voluntary deportation would ensue. However, with a laughable eight people deciding to comply, the Scheduled Departure program was consequently canceled.

The director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) detention and removal operations says the program’s failure proves that enforcement is the only method that works, pointing out that illegal immigrants want amnesty, open borders, and a more vulnerable America.

The failure of the Scheduled Departure Program has the Immigrant-activist sphere concerned that the catastrophe of the initiative could create an increase in raiding and other enforcement. That would essentially bring the matter full circle considering that the Scheduled Departure Program was instituted in response to the criticism of amplified enforcement.

The government remains not only concerned about illegal alien border crossing but also about the frequency of crossing by any U.S. citizen. In an effort to compile a database of border checkpoint travel to guard against terrorism, the government intends to utilize the Border Crossing Information system for future intelligence use. With approximately 75% of people crossing the border into America doing so by land, the task of maintaining a log was impossibly until recently. With the emergence of machine-readable ID material, the government intends to mandate such data to cross the border.

Washington Post Staff Writer, Ellen Nakashima, proclaimed that the effort "reflects the growing number of government systems containing personal information on Americans that can be shared for a broad range of law enforcement and intelligence purposes, some of which are exempt from some Privacy Act protections."

The Department of Homeland Security’s admission of the database coincides with the recent move by the Bush administration to fortify an exceptional amount of data for national security before the end of his term. Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Russ Knocke said:

"History has shown, whether you are talking about criminal or terrorist activity, that plotting, planning or even relationships among conspirators can go on for years," he said. "Basic travel records can, quite literally, help frontline officers to connect the dots."

Some concern about the new initiative revolves around privacy and the possibility of data-mining and/or other complex analysis that could involve innocent people.

Moreover, the Department of Homeland Security seeks to absolve the Border Crossing Information system from the 1974 Privacy Act, containing the right of a citizen to be knowledgeable about the viewing of his/her data by law enforcement or an intelligence agency as well as the entitlement to sue for access and correction in such.

Coming Home: Reflections on Denver’s Convention Craze

By Stephen Nichols, VoterWatch’s DNC Celebrity Correspondent

“I can’t wait to get to Two Fisted Marios Pizza, grab a cocktail at Jet Hotel, and catch a show at Red Rocks,” I remarked to my girlfriend Mercii as soon as I landed. In my first extended stay in the Mile High City since the 2006 circus called the “Real World”, I am feeling a great deal of nostalgia. However, there are a few “subtle” augmentations to the landscape I briefly called home, that surprised me.

For starters, Denver is (and has always been) a world class city; the citizens here know that, and so it didn’t take the 150 million dollar overhaul that the city orchestrated for a far larger television spotlight to reassure themselves of her grandeur. Watch out MTV, here comes the DNC. It’s deep in their hearts; the Rocky Mountain air, their beloved architecture, and their indie-film-esque set of young people that make this place the hub of urban culture that it is (but very few people know about).

This self-confidence that I’ve known Coloradans to brandish, particularly when it comes to their state, is still alive and well. Through the majority of the international press corps, we are left to perceive a unified excitement of the DNC’s presence, as the convention’s goings on are paraded in prime time. Yet, I am witnessing a far different social atmosphere—one that the major media outlets are neglecting.

Against the shining backdrop of the Pepsi Center Complex—the nucleus of the week’s activity—is a police presence that looms over everyone. It’s not just the plain-clothed secret service and their clandestine (and very spooky) ways either. There are fifty-two law enforcement agencies borrowed from across the state, brought here to make people “feel” safe amongst a the highest profile event to hit this state in history.

Ask a local, however, and they’ll tell you that their city was virtually “occupied”, putting their civil liberties in jeopardy. One cab driver tells it like this, “The city could have done a better job making its own people feel at home. This uniformed mob has taken over. It feels like I’m in…Tiananmen Square”. Believe it or not, even the cabbie spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprimand from his employers, (MetroCab of Denver by the way).

I walked the Sixteenth Street Mall on Saturday, days before most party leaders and dignitaries arrived, yet already there were white Chevy Suburban’s with six-riot gear vested officers standing on reinforced foot rails on either side of the vehicle. A message was being sent to the citizens of Denver as they strolled their home turf to get a glimpse of the upcoming festivities or to do some last minute errands before the outsiders invaded their lives.

With not a protester in sight, not any sign of civil unrest, that message rang loud and clear. The message: “Don’t mess with us this week”.

Another feature of the city of Denver I remember from 2006 was a very healthy population of transients and the homeless. In fact, one of our cast assignments on The Real World was to help out at Volunteers of America on a project aimed at providing opportunities for literacy to the many thousands of Denver’s homeless adults and children. As I would ride the free shuttle to the gym, I’d pass several of them on my route and wonder why the cameras never focused in on them, as that is The Real World after all.

What a difference two years makes! The city can certainly celebrate that its homeless problem has been all but eradicated, well seemingly. I have no real evidence of what the city has done, but in talking with the Anderson family, natives of Colorado and residents of the nearby suburb of Wheat Ridge, I was able to come to a plausible hypothesis.

“I heard that the city rounded all of them up and gave them haircuts and movie tickets, and took them to Boulder”, claimed 23-year-old Briana Anderson. “My friend has to plan a two-hour commute, from what would usually be thirty minutes, because the city closed traffic for ten blocks around his office,” says Briana’s sister, Trischa.

Though these reports aren’t confirmed and as extreme as it appears, it does make me wonder where have all the denizens gone and why is it that every time Denver wants to get a little more limelight, the people who live here suffer the most under the guise that, “it’ll be good for us in the long run”?

The city of Denver has never watched its little homestead catapult to the national stage before—at least not to this level. Remember the NBA All-Star Weekend in 2005? Or those seven strangers (shout-outs to Tyrie, Alex, Davis, Brooke, Colie, and Jenn) who were picked to live in a house, have their lives tape and to find out what happened when people stop being polite and start getting real? While the focus was surely put on the city back then, this week’s Democratic National Convention tops the cake.

It will be good for them in the long run, right? The city government and economy will surely profit with an expected 200 million dollars in revenue, as a result of the convention dollars pouring into regional businesses like eateries and hotels. Still, the people who make this city great have to bite there tongue, get out their sneakers, and wait it out until their hometown becomes home again.

I guess it’s a bad time to remind everyone about the failed Winter Olympic bid of 2002. “They got the bid but the city voted it down because it was too expensive”, Paul Anderson, patriarch of the Wheat Ridge clan, told me. With an insatiable appetite for the limelight coupled with fattened city coffers, I can’t help but wonder if the city will reconsider its dreams of bringing the international torch a mile high.

VoteGopher Brings You Convention Commentary Via VoterWatch’s Media Player!

Today, VoteGopher brings you convention coverage through VoterWatch’s interactive Media Player!  Be sure to check out VoteGopher’s web site today.  Below, find their post and check out our democracy tool.  Stay tuned for VoterWatch’s beta release on September 8, 2008 (e-mail us at for more information about how you can use the tool on your web site or blog).  Stay tuned tonight, as our special correspondent, Stephen Nichols, covers Hillary Clinton’s speech (via live blogging) right here!

VoterWatch is Live from the Democratic National Convention

Stephen Nichols reports live during Michelle Obama’s speech tonight at 10:30 EST!

Campaign Finance Reform, Civil Rights & Whistleblower Protection

By Eric Margulies and Lyle Hickman, VoterWatch Staff

Today’s Transparency Recap opens with a truly unique issue: campaign finance reform. It’s interesting to note that no matter how divided the parties find themselves, campaign finance reform is the one issue that has the potential to bridge common disparities.

Recently, there was an attempt to strike down two FEC regulations that restrict the use of soft money in federal campaigns. The challenge, brought by the PAC EMILY’s List (Early Money is Like Yeast, a PAC geared towards the advancement of women in Government), contended that the FEC regulations restricting soft money were unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment by restricting their right to speech.

The restrictions were put in place in late 2004 after the large influence that money from “527s” held in the results of the election. One of the most egregious violations in the 2004 came from America Coming Together (ACT), which spent millions of dollars—98% of it soft money—in battleground states trying to sway voters.

ACT took advantage of vague wording in an FEC regulation. The challenge was rejected by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly who said, “The Supreme Court’s finding in McConnell (FEC V. McConnell) is dispositive of EMILY’s List’s vagueness claims as to the words ‘support’ and ‘oppose,’ and its analysis is similarly fatal to EMILY’s List’s claim as to the term ‘indicate.” Democracy 21’s blog had this to say on the issue:

“The court also found the solicitation regulation “serves to prevent the circumvention of [federal] contribution limits by specifying when funds received by political committees in response to solicitations will be treated as contributions under FECA [Federal Election Campaign Act].”

Further, while FECA imposed limits on political committees’ abilities to make contributions to federal candidates . . . those limits would be of little value if political committees were allowed - as ACT did - to circumvent them simply by characterizing their activities or disbursements as non-federal or not attributable to clearly identified candidates.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly held that the allocation regulation did not limit the speech that a committee could engage in. The court said, “While the allocation regulations at issue in this case may affect the manner in which EMILY’s List must fund the speech in which it chooses to engage, they do not in any way limit the political speech that EMILY’s List may undertake.”

Another lawsuit was filed a few weeks ago by The Real Truth About Obama, INC., which will challenge the very rulings that Judge Kollar-Kotelly upheld. It seems this issue will continue to be contentiously challenged. Regardless of who started the battle, both sides are waging war.

A safety net of legislation is passed for the vocal workers who report their employers, as we move on to the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) blog piece titled “Wait! Still More Work to do to Protect Whistleblowers.”

According to POGO blog, “On Thursday, August 14, President Bush signed the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act. The law provides whistleblower protection for the estimated 20 million workers for companies that make, distribute or sell the 15,000 consumer products under the Commission’s jurisdiction.”

POGO blog commends the President for signing this bill into law, but “calls on lawmakers to provide the same protection to federal employees who are crucial to protecting the public health and safety.” The federal employees are the ones with the most insight and inside information concerning Congress and government transparency.

“The conference committee has been deadlocked for weeks,” POGO blog writes, “working to resolve critical remaining issues which POGO believes will determine whether Congress is serious about results or simply making a gesture towards good governance and transparency.”

The topic of protection rights brings us to American Constitution Society’s (ACS) blog “Calif. High Court Says Anti-Discrimination Act Trumps First Amendment Rights,” where freedom of speech and religious beliefs conflict with law. Guadalupe T. Benitez, a lesbian seeking artificial insemination, was denied on the basis of the acting physicians religious beliefs. According to ACS blog:

Guadalupe T. Benitez then sued the hospital, arguing that her rights under the state’s civil rights law were violated. California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act states that “All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, an no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”

Amended in 2005, California’s lawmakers added a sexual orientation clause. The ACS blog quotes the California Supreme Court’s conclusion on the Civil Rights Act:

“...valid and neutral law...that applies to all people, regardless of their religious beliefs..."it requires business establishments to provide ‘full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services’ to all persons notwithstanding their sexual orientation. Accordingly, the First Amendment’s right to the free exercise of religion does not exempt defendant physicians here from conforming their conduct to the Act’s antidiscrimination requirements even if compliance poses an incidental conflict with defendants’ religious beliefs.

In other news, Ellen Miller at the Sunlight Foundation blog is reporting on the war on earmarks being waged by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). Dubbed the “earmark sheriff” Coburn, the chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Government Relations in the last Congress sent out numerous letters to various federal agencies requesting information on earmark management.

Last week Coburn’s office received the reports and apparently his staff was not impressed. It is clear that the bureaucracies were not enthusiastic to cooperate with Coburn since they had to designate their own personnel and spend part of their own budgets to liaise. Miller had insightful commentary on the Sunlight Foundation Blog: “Undoubtedly more pertinent, however, is that the agencies apparently pulled punches out of a reticence to offend any single member of Congress.”

“Agency heads are often reluctant to criticize the hand that feeds them,” Coburn’s press secretary is quoted as saying. “We weren’t pleased with the level of openness.”

Special Interests Pour in Convention Dollars

By Billy Hallowell, VoterWatch Staff

Both Barack Obama and John McCain have issued lofty statements regarding their efforts to reduce the influence that lobbyists have on the hill and throughout the American political system. But, while the candidates often speak candidly of reducing the impact that special interests have in Washington, there are still a number of unaddressed loopholes. Despite the incessant rhetoric spewing from both sides of the aisle, little has been done to regulate the donations that have been pouring in for the Democratic and Republican national conventions.

Both candidates want to be perceived as reformers. Unfortunately for both McCain and Obama, true change is all encompassing. Touting one’s status as a reformer does next to nothing if all regulatory measures have not been considered. This is the subject of Fredreka Schouten’s piece in the USA Today entitled, “Donors Pick Up the Convention Tab.” According to Schouten,

Political action committees (PACs) of unions can give only $5,000 directly to a candidate for a primary or general election. Individuals are limited to $2,300. There is no cap on how much any union, company or individual can give to a political convention.

While individuals and PACs are reasonably restricted on the candidate level, large labor unions, companies and wealthy individuals have an unregulated playing field through which they can disseminate limitless funding to the Republican and Democratic conventions. Forget the loop; this hole is gaping.

Schouten points out recent—and might we add astronomical—donations from The American Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Both institutions donated nearly $500,000 to the Democratic National Convention. Additionally, Quest Communications “...has committed $6 million in cash and in-kind support to both conventions.” Even though companies are restricted from donating directly to the candidates, they, too, may provide funds for the conventions.

Beyond the fact that these donations still illicit influence over the parties and their respective candidates, there are other ramifications to consider. In addition to companies’ and unions’ potential fiscal influence, some organizations and corporations are also planning a physical presence at the conventions.

Last week, Bill Alliston, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, penned a piece that focused on special interests and the flagrant lack of regulatory measures that surround various convention activities. According to Alliston,

“Lobbyists wine and dine party insiders and elected officials, big donors feast with the party insiders who depend on their deep pockets, and corporations with business before the federal government pick up most of the tab.”

After scouring event lists released by a top Washington lobbying firm, Sunlight discovered a number of corporate-sponsored events. In sum, there are some 370 planned parties that are to be sponsored by large companies and organizations. According to Alliston, this revelation comes even after new ethics rules brought about via the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 have restricted lobbyists from throwing parties in honor of specific lawmakers.

While Schouten points out that Obama doesn’t take monies from PACS or from federal lobbyists and that McCain does not allow lobbyists on his paid campaign staff, one wonders why neither candidate has attempted to restrict the influence of unions, companies, and wealthy individuals and institutions that are currently infusing both parties with unregulated monies.

True reformers? Not entirely.

Corruption, the EPA and Peer Pressure on the Hill

By Lyle Hickman, VoterWatch Staff

“You were once one of us,” staff members of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wrote to their administrator Stephen Johnson.

This Transparency Recap opens with environmentalists who feel that there is a Judas amongst them.

RegWatch’s blog titled “For EPA Staff Trying to Protect the Planet, ‘Disappointment is Profound,”cites the discontent of the EPA staff members with their spokesman, Johnson. Opting to prolong federal involvement on greenhouse gas emissions and their patulous effects on the environment, Johnson upset the EPA staff. According to RegWatch, ”In July, EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (a relatively minor step in the rulemaking process) that solicits public comment on various regulatory options for curbing greenhouse gas emissions.” After the ANPRM was issued, it was derided by barrages of statements from the Bush Administrations top officials. Shortly after, Johnson decides to prolong federal involvement. According to RegWatch:

In their July 30 letter, the EPA staffers blasted Johnson for including the views of political officials ... while basically ignoring the hard work of EPA experts: “The way in which you subverted the work of EPA staff in your preamble statement on the merits of the supporting rationale for the ANPRM was as unprecedented as it was stunning to your staff and damaging to EPA’s reputation for sound science and policy.”

As per RegWatch, the EPA staff wrote:

The professional staff of EPA has nothing to hide. In fact, contrary to your assertions of executive privilege, the free flow of policy recommendations would be aided by opening up all (not just selected) communications to public scrutiny… We were proud when you were nominated as the first of us to occupy the Administrator’s Office, and we expected great things. Our disappointment is profound.”

The continuing dispute between the EPA staff and Johnson has its implications. The staff’s disappointment stems from Johnson’s decision not to pressure the government. The scorn of the Bush Administration could’ve pressured Johnson to delay federal involvement.

In related news concerning potential partisan influence, a piece from OpenSecrets’ Capital Eye blog titled “Lawmakers Peer-Pressured Into Joining the Party,” details a trend/tie in Congress’ retirees and generous donations. According to Capital Eye, “Congress, with its cliques and hierarchy, is one of those places that’s described as operating a lot like high school. And, as in school, there’s peer pressure among lawmakers-pass this bill, support this amendment, appropriate these funds.” Some members of Congress are being pressured to donate to their respective parties.

“So far,” Capital Eye writes, “135 members of the House haven’t given a penny from their campaign accounts to help out their team. Ten of those 135 members are leaving Congress at the end of this year and really have nothing to lose by handing over some dough (unless they don’t have any money left to give).” The 400 members that have made donations are applying some classic, high-school peer pressure, urging the 135 members to make donations to their political party. As members retire from Congress, they typically give large donations. In 2006, eight congressional retirees left the National Republican Congressional Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee approximately a combined half-million dollars. Yesterday, Representative Ralph Regula (R-Ohio) contributed $163,000 and Representative Jim McCrey (R-La) donated $732,500 to the NRCC.

According to Capital Eye, “The 125 current House members who are seeking re-election but haven’t given anything to their party might be anticipating needing the money for their own campaigns.” While laws are being reviewed, vetoed, and passed, members of congress are being asked by fellow members to contribute to a fund that helped them get elected. Some oblige, while others do not.

Moving on, the Sunlight Foundation’s blog titled “Map the Mess,” focuses on government corruption and citizen efforts to expose it to the masses. Exasperated by corruption in Cuyahoga County government, a collective of citizen and investigative journalists have taken on the task of unearthing the foul play for public discourse.

According to the Sunlight Foundation:

They’ve launched Map the Mess, a grassroots effort to shed light on the workings of business and government in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. They use social networking maps to reveal connections in government and ... how public officials conduct business in the county. They hope that the site provides enough transparency to the local government as to change the pattern of ‘patronage and privilege that frustrates reform and productivity.’

An example of the Map the Mess is here.

The accessibility of the user-friendly map allows the average citizen to become a sleuth. With forums, facts, and other features, Map the Mess definitely marks an advance with both government transparency and investigative journalism.

Speaking of corruption, Talking Points Memo’s Muckraker covered an Alaska State Senator’s legal plea in “Cowerdy Pleads Not Guilty.” According to the Muckraker, last month, “Alaska State Senator John Cowdery (R) was indicted on charges of bribery and corruption.” Specifically, the Anchorage Daily News writes:

An Anchorage state senator with ties to disgraced oil field services company Veco Corp. pleaded not guilty to federal counts of bribery and conspiracy. John Cowdery, 78, was arraigned Monday in U.S. District Court. His trial was set for Oct. 6. He was arraigned on charges of conspiring to bribe a fellow state senator with $25,000 in Veco money.

“If the name VECO sounds familiar,” the Muckraker writes,” it should. It’s the same oil field services company behind the recent indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK).” Stevens was featured in last week’s Transparency Recap here.