http://voterwatch.org/index.php/ en billy@voterwatch.org Copyright 2008 2008-08-15T21:28:00-08:00 http://voterwatch.org/site/special_interests_pour_in_convention_dollars/ http://voterwatch.org/site/special_interests_pour_in_convention_dollars/#When:21:28:00Z By Billy Hallowell, VoterWatch StaffBoth 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. Technorati Tags: obama,mccain,campaign finance,reform,2008 election,2008 campaign 2008-08-15T21:28:00-08:00 http://voterwatch.org/site/corruption_the_epa_and_peer_pressure_on_the_hill/ http://voterwatch.org/site/corruption_the_epa_and_peer_pressure_on_the_hill/#When:22:37:00Z 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. 2008-08-12T22:37:00-08:00 http://voterwatch.org/site/opting_out_notes_on_the_federal_elections_system/ http://voterwatch.org/site/opting_out_notes_on_the_federal_elections_system/#When:19:41:00Z By Danielle Lanzet, VoterWatch Staff In rejecting the public grant for the general election, Barack Obama became the first major-party candidate to decline the grant since the establishment of the program in 1974. Shortly thereafter, John McCain declared that Obama’s decision goes against the commitment Obama pledged to the American populace to accept a grant totaling more than $84 million from taxpayer funding for the election. According to The Boston Globe: “McCain’s campaign called Obama ‘just another typical politician who will do and say whatever is most expedient’ and said his ‘reversal of his promise to participate in the public-finance system undermines his call for a new type of politics.‘” In response, Obama claimed that McCain has basically been furthering his general election campaign in concurrence with the Republican National Committee since early spring whereas he [Obama] had yet to secure the Democratic nomination. Moreover, Obama avows that the system not only remains broken but also tolerates the stifling of the voice of the America public by the special interest sphere. Obama’s decision then allows him to continue on with his unprecedented Internet geared fund raising. Having found remarkable success with funding through his so-called “grassroots movement” involving small personal endowments - often no more than $5 or $10 - Obama has the opportunity to tactically control his campaign stratagem. Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, commented on Obama’s Internet fund raising: “When you’re looking at the kind of money he can raise now from small donors and your first goal is to win . . . there’s nobody who wouldn’t do this.” Without a doubt, the cost of winning does not come cheap. A presidential candidate must have money for travel, advertising, etc. In order to raise that large sum of money, the candidate must appeal to the American people. In short, a candidate must sell himself and his platform to acquire further fiscal gain and public standing which ultimately then translates into a vote - or at least that remains the intended outcome. Following the Watergate disgrace with Richard Nixon, the Federal Election Campaign Act amendments of 1974 sought to do the following: set a spending limit if a candidate accepted government subvention; institute public financial backing for a presidential election; create the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to be the supervisory body. A special report done by the Washington Post on campaign finance explains how the Supreme Court, in the 1976 Buckley V. Valeo decision, maintained that spending money to influence a political election remains constitutionally valid as through the First Amendment; the court also ruled that a presidential candidate could provide an unlimited amount of money to his/her own campaign. In a discussion with a five-year old child in 2007, Barack Obama said, “We’ve got to make sure that the people who have more money help the people who have less money. If you had a whole pizza and your friend had no pizza, would you give him a slice?” Maybe the American people should simply ask for a piece of the pie. 2008-08-11T19:41:00-08:00 http://voterwatch.org/site/stevens_federal_indictment_crs_reporting_consumer_rights_wal_marts_alleged/ http://voterwatch.org/site/stevens_federal_indictment_crs_reporting_consumer_rights_wal_marts_alleged/#When:15:17:00Z By Lyle Hickman and Billy Hallowell, VoterWatch Staff Today’s Transparency Recap starts way up north with our coldest state, Alaska. According to Talking Points Memo‘s, Republican Senator Ted Stevens was “arraigned last week on seven counts of false statements”. After a federal indictment, without stagnation, Stevens regrouped and organized a rally. According to Talking Points Memo: At 9:30 AM AKDT today, Stevens held a rally at his campaign headquarters in Anchorage, Alaska. While his poll numbers have not flagged for the upcoming Alaska Republican primary, they have plummeted in general election polls. Stevens’ likely Democratic opponent Mark Begich leads the incumbent Stevens (sub. req.) 56% to 35% according to a July 30-31 study. Stevens, followed by a fleet of leather-draped motorcyclists, made a grand entrance warming the atmosphere in the typically cold climate of Anchorage, Alaska. Talking Points Memo quotes Senator Stevens before his supporters saying, “The primary is the goal right now. Help me win that primary and help me be the candidate for the Republican party. September will take care of itself.” In other news, Secrecy News penned an interesting piece about Congress’ failure to adequately provide online access to CRS reports. According to the Secrecy News blog, the military judge handling Salim Ahmed Hamdan’s case (bin Laden’s taxi driver who was convicted yesterday for “material support of terrorism") referenced a CRS report that was published on the Federation of American Scientists’ web site. Since Congress did not officially release the document, the judge utilized the FAS source by providing the link to the document in his footnotes. According to Secrecy News: “Perhaps [the judge] . . . implicitly affirmed that FAS and other public interest publishers of CRS collections are helping to compensate for that continuing policy defect by providing the online access to CRS reports that Congress has denied.” According to OMB’s RegWatch blog, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act that was recently passed by Congress provides many improvements that will benefit the general public. In a market that is dominated by cheap imports, OMB claims that the act will potentially lead the Consumer Product Safety Committee to better regulate the market, while providing consumers with the protection they deserve. Moving on to the American Constitution Society’s Blog, the “Justice Integrity Act,” introduced by Senators Joseph Biden (D-Del.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.), and Arlen Specter (R-Penn), is ”a bill that would require the U.S. Attorney General to study racial and ethnic disparities in the judicial system… The measure, S.3245, would require the Attorney General to create advisory groups in ten federal districts to examine and determine the pervasiveness of racial and ethnic disparity in the criminal justice system.” According to ACS Blog, this bill awaits the Senate Judiciary Committee. On an interesting transparency note, we were delighted to read that “the bill would require the Attorney General to make public the findings of the groups’ studies and recommendations on how to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities.” Over at All Things Whistleblower, John McCain’s support for nuclear energy is under scrutiny. According to the ATW blog: “McCain supports the creation of over 45 new nuclear plants by 2030, but he has not come close to adequately addressing concerns about the safety or cost of further developing this energy source. When addressing the current and future energy crisis, America’s leaders have to be more creative and more responsible than that.” “Vote Republican - Save 10 Percent on All Purchases,” reads the title of www.opensecrets.org‘s Capital Eye blog. According to the Capital Eye, the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, urged its employees to place their ballots for a Republican candidate, “arguing that Democrats would pass a harmful bill allowing labor organizations to unionize workplaces without secret ballot elections. ” Wal-Mart denies suggesting its employees vote republican, while referencing their financial contributions to both the Democratic and Republican parties by their political action committee. The Capital Eye states: “This year the Big Box retailer, which has resisted being unionized, has given more to Democrats than ever before--$565,500, or 43 percent of its total contributions--when including both PAC contributions and individual donations. Wal-Mart employees have also given Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama $10,600 so far this cycle, compared to $6,850 to Republican opponent John McCain.” 2008-08-07T15:17:00-08:00 http://voterwatch.org/site/open_government_illegals_fis_twitter_astronomical_gas_prices/ http://voterwatch.org/site/open_government_illegals_fis_twitter_astronomical_gas_prices/#When:17:12:01Z By Eric Margulies, VoterWatch StaffThis week’s edition of the Transparency Recap commences with the implementation of a major step in the arena of governmental transparency. On August 1st, The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 saw its first act of realization take place as information pertaining to lawmakers’ assets, liabilities and lobby-related-expenditures and gifts were posted on the House Clerk’ s website. However, a quick perusal of the disclosure database proves slow and somewhat difficult to navigate given its complex interface. In addition, the files can only be viewed in .PDF format meaning that for many who are without the software required to open .PDF files, the information is lost. Dan Auble at the Capital Eye Blog writes about the current flaws with the system of disclosure and how the Center for Responsive Politics is already seeking to remedy them: “While the new system is a major improvement, ideally these forms would be filled out electronically and provided to the public as a downloadable database. The House already makes lobbying data available this way, as does the Federal Election Commission with campaign finance data. Meanwhile, thanks to support from the Sunlight Foundation, CRP has been picking up the slack by keying the information in from these filings, posting the data in a fully searchable database on OpenSecrets.org, and providing analysis of the findings.” And in other news, in Madison County, Alabama, a law requiring venders to sign a pledge stating that they will not willingly hire illegal immigrants is being challenged for alleged unconstitutionality. In a political climate in which immigration is a major issue of concern, cases such as this one are extremely intriguing. According to Judicial Watch: “The anti-illegal alien pledge policy simply requires firms seeking county contracts to submit in writing that they do not knowingly employ illegal immigrants. A construction company, that recently lost a multi million-dollar contract because it didn’t abide by the policy, is suing the county claiming the policy contradicts federal law.” In other government transparency news, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) recently filed a request to the Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB) to review the classified opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FIS) Court over the past 10 years and to make recommendations regarding the classification or declassification of said opinions. The FIS Court deals almost exclusively with the authorization for domestic intelligence surveillance. Occasionally the court deals with the interpretation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that binds their actions, creating a secret court whose jurisdiction is, seemingly, at their own will. Clearly there is a necessity for action as Judge John D. Bates, himself a member of the FIS Court, recognized that the Court had indeed issued several “legally significant decisions that remain classified.” The idea of there being such a thing as a secret court would be stunning and unsettling to many Americans, but many aren’t even aware of the FIS Court’s existence. Moving forward, House interaction with Twitter has continued to produce further insight into the machinations of Congress. For those unaware, Twitter.com is a free social networking site that allows its users to send real time updates of up to 140 characters. (known as Tweets) through its micro-blogging service. Recently, there had been much debate over the use of Twitter to unveil the workings in the House casting the parties in opposing positions. Republicans lobbied for the free use of Twitter; Democrats remained weary of the technological step forward. House Republicans took the floor after the body adjourned for summer recess to protest the failure of the House to vote to allow offshore drilling. While the protest was raging Rep. John Culbertson (R-TX), the House’s foremost Twitter advocate, was busy Tweeting the proceedings on his account. While this can at first seem humorous, one must keep in the mind that Culbertson’s tweeting allowed those reading his account to receive a real time update on an event the mainstream media had not yet become aware of. However, as Paul Blumenthal on the Sunlight Foundation Blog points out: “. . . Twitter isn’t the only angle to this story. These lawmakers aren’t simply taking to the floor to demand help for gas consumers, they are pushing a central facet of the oil industry’s legislative agenda: offshore drilling. Just yesterday it was announced that, yet again, ExxonMobil broke the record for largest quarterly profit pulling in $11.7 Billion.” The debate on offshore drilling continues to rage despite the recess as Americans and the economy in general continue to be heavily burdened by astronomical gas prices. 2008-08-04T17:12:01-08:00 http://voterwatch.org/site/nonpartisan_endorsements_an_unsafe_embassy_and_the_ideological_divide/ http://voterwatch.org/site/nonpartisan_endorsements_an_unsafe_embassy_and_the_ideological_divide/#When:16:22:00Z By Lyle Hickman and Billy Hallowell, VoterWatch StaffThis week’s Transparency Recap opens with a Corruption Chronicles blog entry entitled “‘Nonpartisan’ La Raza Council Endorses Obama.” The National Council of La Raza was founded in 1968 in Washington D.C. as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. While the organization touts nonpartisan status, Judicial Watch (via its blog, the Corruption Chronicles) is charging partisan support for the presumed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. According to Corruption Chronicles: “. . . La Raza President Janet Murguia stood by as Los Angeles’ renowned Chicano mayor (Antonio Villaraigosa) praised the Illinois senator during the group’s annual convention in San Diego. A former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman, Villaraigosa assured the crowd of thousands that Obama is Latinos’ best hope for reforming the nation’s federal immigration policies.” Moving on, ABC News’ The Blotter covers a warning issued by the United States embassy located in Baghdad, Iraq. According to The Blotter, “Weapons are continuing to be left unattended throughout the Embassy compound . . .” Unattended weaponry in an embassy is unacceptable, especially when considering the current situation in Iraq. The war makes the embassy a prime target of the Iraqi insurgents. According to The Blotter the U.S. embassy warns its employees and cohorts: “. . . Just to be clear, the embassy reminds employees: -- Don’t leave your gun unattended when using the embassy pool. “If using the Embassy Pool, you must designate a gear guard.”-- Don’t leave guns unattended in vehicles, even if the vehicle is locked.-- And don’t carry your gun if you’ve been drinking. “No weapon will be carried while drinking alcoholic beverages.” Anyone caught violating the rules will have his or her weapons confiscated, the document warns, and a supervisor will have to sign a letter requesting that it be returned after the individual has “been counseled on proper weapons retention . . .” In other news, Secrecy News penned a piece about the “Foreign Relations of the United States”—a series that the State Department defines as ”. . . [a presentation of] the official documentary historical record of major U.S. foreign policy decisions and significant diplomatic activity. The series, which is produced by the State Department’s Office of the Historian, began in 1861 and now comprises more than 350 individual volumes.” While one can easily see the importance of such an official historical account of U.S. activity, Secrecy News reports the following: “The “Foreign Relations of the United States” (FRUS) series . . . remains unlikely to meet the legal requirement that it be published no later than 30 years after the events that it describes, an official advisory committee has told the Secretary of State.” Over on the Sunlight blogs, Ellen Miller covers the growing divide between Sen. Joe Lieberman and the Democratic Party. According to Miller, “The Connecticut Independent’s high-profile support for the Iraq War and a bellicose demeanor toward Iran, as well as his enthusiastic endorsement of and active campaigning for Sen. John McCain’s presidential bid and his criticism of Sen. Barack Obama as the presumptive Democratic nominee, have all helped to put his relationship with the Democrats in quite the precarious spot.” The relationship is in such shambles that left-wing activists are petitioning for Lieberman to be stripped of his rank and removed from his Homeland Security chairmanship. Democrats are calling for these actions to be taken following the 2008 presidential election in November. And in other news, former Arlington National Cemetery Public Affairs Director Gina Gray was allegedly fired for advocating for more media access to soldiers’ funeral processions. After publicly disclosing the fact that ceremony officials are not allowing media access at funerals—even after families agreed to said coverage—Gray was fired. All Things Whistleblower poses an interesting thought regarding the next administration: “With the images of funerals being so powerful, and thought of to raise the conscious level of the casualties of war, it will be very interesting to see how this issue is handled by the next presidential  administration.” In closing, OpenSecrets.org’s Capital Eye is ”Calling All Citizen Journalists.” Check the contest out and you could potentially win $100! 2008-07-16T16:22:00-08:00 http://voterwatch.org/site/notes_on_the_honest_leadership_and_open_government_act_of_2007/ http://voterwatch.org/site/notes_on_the_honest_leadership_and_open_government_act_of_2007/#When:13:57:00Z By Eric Margulies, VoterWatchOn May 24, 2007, Congress passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. For many, the bill signifies the government’s movement toward more citizen access and government transparency. While the bill certainly poses a victory to the open government community, its overall impact must be properly assessed, as valid criticisms can surely be posed. Beginning at the end of July 2008, lobbyists will have to disclose campaign contributions, which include contributions made through a political action committee owned or controlled by the lobby, lawmaker honorary expenses, expenses for meetings with lawmakers, and donations to presidential libraries. The bill also disallows former senators and executive branch officials from lobbying Congress for at least two years after leaving their elected positions; former House members must wait only one year. These developments undoubtedly show the increasing support that the notion of open government is getting amongst members of the legislative branch. These changes also pave the way for unprecedented transparency that will enable citizens to see the machinations of what was previously known as “backroom politics.” This transparency will logically lead to further accountability on the part of lobbies, which may considerably decrease the incestuous cronyism that tends to permeate the political system. The bill itself says that it will work towards “closing of the revolving door.” While Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 was clearly the right move, the bill isn’t without its faults. To begin, there are concerns about just how much transparency this bill can provide, as questions surround loopholes and the required frequency of reporting. On the Sunlight blogs, Ellen Miller recently questioned the provision that requires lobbyists to file only two times each year: “I was struck by the lack of timeliness of these new reports. Being filed only twice a year raises the question: how much transparency will these forms actually provide? With all the online tools we have access to today, why not have instantaneous disclosure? Why wait six months, when the money changing hands is affecting legislation being written today? It seems to me that this new requirement will give us some more information about the role of the power lobbyist, it does little to deal with the most critical problem - the timeliness of reporting.” When the July 30th deadline for filing passes, some of the questions regarding the bill will likely be answered and a few new questions may also arise. Many Americans see lobbying as one of the many symbols of government corruption and sketchy politics. Simply speaking, the word conjures up images of unfair patronage and back room deals being made in smoky rooms somewhere not far from K Street. However, if this bill does as it promises or simply sets into motion a chain of events leading to further disclosure, the popular conception of lobbies as insider-only political machines may be drastically altered. 2008-07-10T13:57:00-08:00 http://voterwatch.org/site/us_dependence_roves_testimony_detroits_political_trauma_the_domestic_record/ http://voterwatch.org/site/us_dependence_roves_testimony_detroits_political_trauma_the_domestic_record/#When:17:40:00Z Happy Independence Day, America (a little late)! We hope everyone enjoyed the holiday. Today, we’re going to recap some of the best in transparency and citizen engagement news from the end of last week through today—Monday, July 07, 2008. Today’s recap starts with a piece entitled, “Red, White and Green” from the Capital Eye blog. While our entire nation has been celebrating our independence from Great Britain, we might actually be more dependent than we realize. According to Capital Eye, “...36 current members of Congress have collected at least 20 percent of their contributions from a single industry, setting up a scheme of dependence and perhaps the expectation of a tit-for-tat.” Moreover, this dependency on certain industries should concern Americans. If our representatives in government are receiving money from companies, organizations and specific industries, how likely are they to represent our interests over the interests of their donors? And over on the Corruption Chronicles blog, Detroit is the subject of conversation. According to CC, the city’s governing council is being investigated by the federal government for allegedly accepting bribes; the bribes were allegedly accepted by council members in exchange for the approval of a multi million dollar contract. According to CC: “...several members of the Detroit City Council are suspected of taking bribes to approve a $47 million contract last fall with a Houston company to handle sludge waste from the city’s wastewater treatment plant. The FBI has electronic surveillance evidence of City Council President Pro Tem Monica Conyers taking bribes from the company, Synagro Technologies.” In other news, Karl Rove will not be testifying in front of the House Judiciary Committee. According to CREW, Rove has apparently invoked executive privilege. According to Politico (as per CREW): “Karl Rove, former White House deputy chief of staff and President Bush’s top political adviser, is refusing to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to testify on “politicization” within the Justice Dept. Rove had been scheduled to appear next Thursday, July 10.” And over on the Washington Post’s Indep Dump blog, focus is centered upon detainees who have been apprehended abroad. Over the past six-and-a-half years, detainees apprehended in the War on Terror have been fingerprinted and processed. As it turns out, hundreds of these individuals have criminal records. According to Post: “The records suggest that potential enemies abroad know a great deal about the United States because many of them have lived here, officials said. The matches also reflect the power of sharing data across agencies and even countries, data that links an identity to a distinguishing human characteristic such as a fingerprint.” And over on the CommonBlog, it’s all about Iran/U.S. relations and the measures currently brewing in the House and Senate. Also, be sure to check out TPM’s Daily Muck for intriguing daily news briefs. 2008-07-07T17:40:00-08:00 http://voterwatch.org/site/presidential_responsibility_personal_financial_disclosure_rep_culberson_and/ http://voterwatch.org/site/presidential_responsibility_personal_financial_disclosure_rep_culberson_and/#When:14:44:00Z This weekend’s edition of the Transparency Recap focuses begins with the POGO blog’s coverage of a Washington Post piece by Professor Paul Light. According to POGO, Light tackles the challenges the next president will face upon entering office. From organizing the many titles and positions within the executive branch, to better managing contractors, the needs associated with reformation are plentiful. POGO ends the entry with the following words: “With the retirement of the baby boomers from government, the time is right for the next president to reform the bureaucracy and create a more effective federal governing body.  Change is imperative not only for the next president’s approval numbers, but for America’s well-being.” And over at All Things Reform, David Weller is encouraging synergy! Check out his new list of online collaboration projects. If your organization is currently involved in implementing a project, this might be the perfect place to have it listed. On the Sunlight blogs, Ellen Miller covers research conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics. According to Miller, the research surrounds the Personal Financial Disclosure forms of Congressional members. According to the Center for Responsive Politics: “Forty-six husbands and wives of Congress members reported owning stock in 2006 in companies that have a vested interest in their spouses’ committees, worth a total of $27.3 million to $46.7 million.” Over at ReadtheBill.org, praise is in abundance for Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) who has been voicing concern over Congress’ inability to read bills prior to voting on them. ReadtheBill.org is encouraging Culberson to sponsor H.Res.504. According to Open Congress, the resolution would do the following: “[Amend] the Rules of the House of Representatives to require that legislation and conference reports be available on the Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and for other purposes.” The always-useful Secrecy News blog highlights some intriguing and relevant CRS reports. From Iran’s economy to the costs associated with war on terror operations, these reports are essential to explore. CDT covers one CRS report, in particular, on the PolicyBeta blog: CRS No. RL34454—an overview of U.S. technology and science policy. In California, judicial corruption was just dealt an impressive blow. As per the Corruption Chronicles, a California judge has been removed for “manifestly unjudicial” misconduct. According to CC: “The Orange County Superior Court judge (Kelly MacEachern), a former county prosecutor, filed false and misleading expense claims for a legal conference in San Diego and then lied under oath when questioned about them.” Over at All Things Whistleblower, talk is centered upon three Congressional senators who are calling on Congress to investigate the FBI’s alleged treatment of an agent whistleblower. The agent testified in front of Congress back in May; his testimony focused on internal issues that have hampered counterterrorism strategy and effectiveness. Two days after the statements were made, he was accused of violating FBI rules and regulations. And over on the Common blog, Common Cause discusses the launch of its new campaign: Recapture the Flag! To conclude the weekend edition of the recap, be sure to check out Democracy21‘s response to the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the so-called “Millionaire’s Amendment.” According to the Democracy21 blog: “While we are disappointed in the decision, however, it is important to keep in mind that the Supreme Court ruling does not in any way disturb the earlier Court decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission that upheld the constitutionality of the soft money ban contained in BCRA.” 2008-06-28T14:44:00-08:00 http://voterwatch.org/site/obama_opts_out_lobbyists_hold_back_and_nuke_components_missing_among_other/ http://voterwatch.org/site/obama_opts_out_lobbyists_hold_back_and_nuke_components_missing_among_other/#When:16:35:00Z Welcome to the Friday edition of the Transparency Recap. Since we last published, the political arena has been bustling with news and happenings. Since it’s been a few days since the last recap, we’ll try to cover the most impactful events that occurred during the course of the week. Undoubtedly, one of the biggest issues this week has been the privatization of Obama’s campaign finances. According to OpenSecrets’ Capital Eye blog, Obama has forgoed more than $80 in public financing “...making him the first major party nominee to reject the taxpayers’ grant since the program began in 1976.” While Obama insists that the system if broken, McCain (who plans to use the public financing system) is accusing Obama of going back on his word to stay within the public system. On this same issue, Democracy 21 issued a pointed statement about Obama’s decision to privatize: 2008-06-20T16:35:00-08:00