Transparency

I have argued for a while that Repubicans need to pick up the mantle of transparency. It is useful tactically and strategically. On the tactical level, the guys in leadership always play "hide the ball with what they are doing". This gives Republicans a morally secure high-ground to attack whatever the Democrats do. Strategically, it gives us an issue that can both rally our base and makes good sense to independents and many Democrats.

On Friday, House Republican Leader John Boehner issued a statement on transparency. The key passage:

It’s just common sense: Americans should be allowed to read the text of major bills before Congress votes on them.  Previous Congresses, including Republican ones, failed to live up to this standard.  But never before has the failure been as blatant as it has been in the past nine months under Speaker Pelosi.   Things have to change.

There are two key parts to this. First, he grabbed the policy issue and framed it in the adult and serious way "Americans" (not "Members of Congress", which seems like only a populist argument, although some in the media have grabbed the straw man to give the Democrats aircover) should know what Congress is doing so that we can hold them accountable.

The second part is, perhaps, more important. John Boehner has now explicitly rejected the way that he ran the House, said "we have learned", and established a new line in the sand. Furthermore, one of the reforms that he advocates, in this case, a waiting period before legislation can be acted on, actually may impact many of the wasteful spending concerns that actually helped drive him out of office. 

What is so fascinating is the rejection by Senate Democrats and the silence of lefty advocacy groups other than the Sunlight Foundation. In an effort to get a public copy of the healthcare bill before a vote, John Kerry said:

"This is fundamentally a delay tactic," the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate said. "I mean, let's be honest about it. The legislative language, everybody knows, is relatively arcane, legalistic, and most people don't read the legislative language."

That's right. But people who are interested do. People who are experts or people being impacted do, or they hire people to.

And this gets to the final point. Where is the press? Huffington Post is being sent around by Demcorats, because they are giving cover to Democrats. But they aren't really press. But where is the Fourth Estate demanding that they have the information to tell the American people what the debate is about.

Crickets.

You would think that John Boehner repudiating how Republicans ran the House would be worthy of news.

Crickets.

You would think that John Kerry giving cover to the Senate acting without even having legislation (I'm not talking about reading the bill here ...) would be newsworthy.

Crickets outside of Fox and the Washington Times.

We've learned a few things over the last few weeks. One thing is that our opponents are really a bunch of animals

Consider the so-called "Blue Dogs". They loudly purport to be moderate, fiscally responsible Democrats. because that's what their district wants to hear. But we've found that on the Obamacare bill and on Cap & Tax, just enough Blue Dogs voted with the liberals to assure passage.

John Fund said this years ago before they joined the majority, but these folks aren't "Blue Dogs". They are Pelosi's Poodles 

This is what a "Blue Dog" really looks like

They are perfectly trained to fetch , heel and roll over for their masters Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman. Meanwhile they are also well trained to go back to their districts and beg for support by jumping through hoops pretending to be moderates or conservatives.

We'll see how Zack Space, Mike Ross, Bart Gordon & co. fare trying to explain they aren't just the door openers to Barney Frank's government medical monopoly.

But now members of the House aren't being dogs at all. At least a dog comes when he is called. 

Now  they are nothing but a bunch of  scaredy cats.

Long Island Democrat Congressman Tim Bishop is not alone---running away from the voters he claims to represent instead of defending his record.

“I had felt they would be pointless,” Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) told POLITICO, referring to his recent decision to suspend the events in his Long Island district. “There is no point in meeting with my constituents and [to] listen to them and have them listen to you if what is basically an unruly mob prevents you from having an intelligent conversation.”

In Bishop’s case, his decision came on the heels of a June 22 event he held in Setauket, N.Y., in which protesters dominated the meeting by shouting criticisms at the congressman for his positions on energy policy, health care and the bailout of the auto industry.

Within an hour of the disruption, police were called in to escort the 59-year-old Democrat — who has held more than 100 town hall meetings since he was elected in 2002 — to his car safely.

Hmm, Tim. I suppose if they don't agree with you then they are an "unruly mob"  

Evidently this is what a lot of "town meetings" are looking like--not the pro-government expansion pep rallies incumbent politicians and their special interest allies like to see.

Hey, if you want to pass bills you haven't read and spend money the country doesn't have you might actually find the public has an opinion about this. 

Maybe our members of the House might want to dust off their copy of the Constitution. Seems they are little unclear about the "redress of grievances" concept.

This August, it is incumbent on all Americans to make clear this is a Republic answerable to the voters, not an imperial government answerable to D.C. power brokers.  And if our elected "representatives" want to hide, well that says more than millions of dollars in slick TV ads, now doesn't it.   

If you can't defend what you are doing in Washington to the people in your district, quit.  

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.

This is a follow-up to my last post. There are some ideas for transparency that seem much more reasonable to me. For example ...

Arkansan Republican legislator Dan Greenberg wants to make criminal background checks of government officials accessible to the public for a fee. His rationale:

To state the obvious, public officials occupy a unique position of power and trust. I do not think that a criminal record is in all cases a disqualifier for public service, but I do think it is something that the public is entitled to know. Some criminals are repeat offenders, and I suspect that the everyday person thinks that having open criminal records is good public policy. So when I first filed a bill that would make the criminal records of government officials public, I figured most people would think it's a good idea. And maybe it is: but most state legislators think differently.

But the Attorney General, the top law enforcement official in the state, thought it was a terrible idea:

Our Attorney General Dustin McDaniel (not to be confused with Steve Clark) also spoke against the bill; he said he thought the bill was too extensive — that letting the public do background checks on every "state legislator, Justice of the Peace and dogcatcher in Arkansas" granted too much access by too many people. We don't actually have elections for dogcatcher in Arkansas, but it was interesting to see him say publicly what I suspect some elected officials thought privately.

He even thought that he should "protect the privacy" of criminals. Even those who work for the government:

The bill finally made it out of committee but didn't fare so well on the floor. Attorney General McDaniel sent a letter to all legislators arguing that we should "protect the privacy" of criminals' public records. That didn't make much sense to me, but apparently it was more persuasive to others. When the vote was taken, government secrecy won and Freedom of Information lost; the bill failed 33-56.

I think that it would be great to know things like how many felons the Governor appointed. And how many felons work for the Attorney General. Doesn't that seem more relevant than what lobbyists people met?

I am a big fan of a transparency agenda, but I wonder who is supposed to be held responsible for violations. My view of transparency is that we use it to force light on the bad actors. But the bad actors are the government officials, elected or otherwise, not the lobbyists. They are the ones who violate the the public trust. And, furthermore, if they are getting bribed, they should be accountable for that.

A couple of recent posts on the subject seem to miss this point.

In a series of posts at the Sunlight Foundation's blog, Paul Blumenthal and John Wonderlich discuss the limitations on lobbying in the stimulus and bailout bills. Paul summarizes part of John's post with:

The justification being given by the administration for these rules is that they do not want the stimulus funding process to be mucked up by lobbyists seeking bits and pieces of the $700+ billion bill for unworthy projects. However, as John notes, we are seeing unregistered influencers go to lobby for stimulus funds. We are also seeing this happen in other large pots of money. Take for example the $700+ billion bailout handled by the Treasury Department:

If something gets "mucked up" by someone ... aren't government officials doing the mucking? In Congress, lobbyists don't write bills, Congressmen do. In the executive branch, either politcal appointees or civil servants write legislation. It seems to me that the incidence of accountability has to rest on the government official. Right? I mean, if someone is passing out the goodies inappropriately ... they are.

For an executive branch official, lobbying mostly means educating the official and making an argument. Perhaps grassroots pressure is brought on, but that is ultimately the problem of the politicals. If there is a quid pro quo, whether an expensive gift, cash, or whatever, it is a crime and should be dealt with, very harshly and expeditiously, through the criminal system.

For Congress, there are political contributions also and political pressure from interest groups. That's why we disclose contributions, and that's why all the contributions should be disclosed immediately and for all contribution levels, especially online contributions. And interest groups apply pressure. That's what they are there for. The unions are doing that on card-check. The business groups are fighting it.

IPDI's Julie Germany writes up GWU professor Jonathan Turley (no conservative) on this point. Turley offers a much more pointed set of reforms:

Turley’s suggests that we:

• Put 75% of the responsibility of the current political crisis on the members of Congress.

• Go back to core principles of what we are trying to achieve in order to fix the system. Go back to Madison’s idea of democracy. Force the factions that divide us into the open. Create systems that prevent back room dealing and special deals that are hidden from the public. Part of the solution is to reform Congress, instead of trying to reform lobbyists.  

• Force Congress to get rid of the things that cause temptation. Get rid of all gifts, other than symbolic gifts donated to the office they serve. Get rid of earmarks. Require total disclosure of all family members who work for lobbyists.

• Address the fact that the system is too detached from its constituents and that incumbents have all the power. This city loves the fact that Congress doesn’t change, but it’s killing this country. This includes allowing other parties to rise in the political system, changing the electoral college, and reforming the way primaries are held.  

The best summary is "reform Congress"  not "reform lobbyists". Let us make Members accountable for their decisions. After all, that's who we vote for. That is who bears the brunt of the criticism. Or should.

If someone does something wrong, we should have the information to wrap it around their necks and hang them in the public's eye. We should be able to help their electorates destroy their careers. Ultimately, I don't see what lobbyists really have to do with that.

When progressives get angry on Congress for doing things they don't like, like David Sirota and the cramdown legislation, Sirota cites a BusinessWeek piece about lobbyists targetting moderate Dems:

Industry lobbyists are organizing home state bankers to pressure moderate Democrats they hope will be receptive to limiting the kinds of loans eligible for cramdown. One target: Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana.

What did these lobbyists do that was so bad? Have a bunch of constituents (bankers) call him and meet with him? Did they explain the logic of this (insane) legislation and how it hurt them? Did Bayh ultimately buy that logic? If so, what is wrong with that?

Or is he alleging that Bayh took bribes, either through contributions or gifts or whatever? If so, what are they?

Or are these lefties just whining because Bayh ultimately thought it was a bad idea, and they couldn't muster arguments that were good enough? In that case, their problem is that they should be electing "Better Democrats", that is people who share their ideas.  Some of them get that idea.

But again, what does that have to do with lobbyists?

And isn't a transparency agenda -- like Obama's -- that focuses on lobbyists, not government officials, basically intellectually bankrupt?

Kudos to Senator DeMint (and his bipartisan co-signers) for getting the Senate to begin publishing votes in the more accessible XML format.  A simple thing to do, sure, and yet it really did take pressure from US Senators to make it happen.

As John Wonderlich writes, "This is what transparency reform looks like. Complicated, messy, confusing, often bipartisan, often initially unsuccessful, and helpfully spurred on through public involvement. If this case serves as any example at all, we should be very encouraged about future efforts."

Senator DeMint has taken a very impressive step forward, leading a bipartisan request to the Committee on Rules and Administration (Senator Schumer and Senator Bennett), asking them to post Senate votes in XML format.  This would make vote records much more transparent and accessible to the public.  Kudos to Senator DeMint for taking the lead on this.  It will be instructive to observe how Senators Schumer and Bennett respond.  Tom Jones, Professional Staff for Senator DeMint, explains what Senator DeMint is doing. - Jon Henke

The Senate has been referred to as the “world’s most exclusive club," a place where deals are made behind closed doors and the public having no idea what’s going on. Too often, transparency can be an after-thought and the privileges of the institution seem to trump the Americans' right to information on their elected officials.

Some reform minded Senators are working to fix these problems. They believe that the Senate can do better because the American people demand and deserve an open and transparent government. Senator DeMint is leading a bipartisan effort to shine a little more sunlight on the Senate by dragging its antiquated vote reporting system into the 21st century.

Currently the Senate posts its votes in HTML (HyperText Markup Language). In 1999, this was acceptable. But today plain HTML is the technological equivalent of a rotary telephone, adequate for a basic service but unable to perform the variety of functions modern technology now allows.

Instead of HTML, Senator DeMint is asking that votes be posted in XML (Extensible Markup Language). Without going to deep into the technology, XML would allow roll call votes in the United States Senate to be disseminated in a format that anyone can download, parse, disseminate, and distribute in any form they see fit. By having an authoritative XML stream provided by the Senate, application developers could build databases that could overlay different types of data onto Senate votes, public interest groups could match up policy background with votes, or any of a hundred other possible applications. The result would not be merely some whiz-bang technology, but rather a better informed electorate.

Unfortunately with the current HTML formatting, the best we can hope for is that outside groups successfully “scrape” the Senate webpage for votes and repackage the data on their website. This forces the public to either pay for the information from other websites or to rely on data which can be prone to errors. Such basic democratic information, how elected officials vote on important issues, should be available in the most transparent format, free and accessible to all Americans.

Many assume the lack of modernization is simply characteristic of an institution with a very un-modern image. Unfortunately, there is evidence that the difficulty in acquiring voting information is not just an oversight, but may be an intentional effort by Senators to keep their votes hidden from nationwide scrutiny.

In years past, employees of the Senate have asked to be allowed to post the Senate votes in XML, but the Rules Committee has curiously refused. The previous webmaster at the Senate explained the prohibition on XML posting this way, “The Rules Committee has always contended that Senators want to provide their voting records to their constituents themselves.” That's Washington-speak for allowing Senators to spin their votes rather than allowing others easier access to the information.

Reform-minded Senators believe Americans should be allowed to draw their own conclusions. Burying this important information with technology shouldn’t be an option.

Below is the text of a letter Senator DeMint and a bipartisan coalition of senators has sent to the new chairman of the Rules Committee, Senator Charles Schumer, asking him to make this simple change that could help make "the world's most exclusive club" also one of the most transparent as well.

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.

The long awaited MyBO and Change.gov mojo is back on WhiteHouse.gov. Tomorrow, President Obama will be responding to questions posed through the latest iteration of Open for Questions, a community-moderated style townhall.

With a little organizing, this is an opportunity for Republicans to vote up questions that hold Obama accountable for ballooning the national debt to $20 trillion by 2019. And this time, many already have. Based on my rough sampling, about a third of the questions come from Obamabots, a third are from Republicans, and a third from marijuana legalization advocates.

Here are a few questions I screencapped just from 5 minutes perusing the random question generator:

(Full screen version.)

Thanks to Katie Favazza and Sean Hackbarth who brought it to my attention, one of the most popular questions right now comes from Peter V. of Oregon, who asks:

I appreciate the efforts of the administration to fix the economy quickly. However, why aren’t you giving the American public the chance to review these bills? In your campaign, you promised we would have at least 5 days.

Indeed, the White House has brazenly walked back this transparency pledge, signing legislation hours after it was passed by both houses of Congress and blowing off the promised five-day cooling-off period. Had we had a real 5-day review period, an intrepid citizen would have had more time to uncover the AIG bonus provision before the bill was signed, potentially sparing us the current tedium.

Community moderation isn't perfect as the self-appointed moderators are more likely than not to be Obama supporters -- but dissenting questions are now appearing on the White House site, and there is a chance that with a little organizing they could be asked of Obama.

Now that we are in opposition, we need to hold the Administration's feet to the fire in demanding perpetually more web-enabled transparency (which, because of the nature of government, it will not always be able to give) -- and be ready to live by it ourselves.

The following government conference on openness and transparency is CLOSED to members of the public and the press. The information below comes from this URL: http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiapost/2009foiapost6.htm.