Lessig's slideshow asking DSCC's Chuck Schumer and DCCC's Chris Van Hollen to follow Barack Obama and the DNC's refusal of lobbyist money is up on Youtube. Embed and send around as you wish.

Over a month ago, Rasmussen released a poll showing Congressional approval ratings at record lows. No other Congress has received poorer ratings. Yesterday morning Rasmussen released yet another 9% approval rating poll showing yet again that Americans are fed-up with the job the people's house is doing.

The continued slump of Congress begs the question, "how low do they go until something changes?" Since we were the ones who elected this Congress, we play an important role in determining whether or not they keep their job.

Could it be the continued scandals that members of Congress are tied to? Maybe its the fact that this Congress has been anemic to getting things done? Or, they have been getting things done in favor of the special interests that fund their campaigns, rather than the people who vote them into office. Whatever the reason it surely isn't partisan since both parties have had control and have failed in gaining the compliments of the American people.

So this is our work ahead. Change Congress is determined to reinvigorate people's trust in the one body of government they are closest to. If we're successful, approval ratings like the ones above could be a distant memory.

Our Political Director, Japhet Els, is on the ground in Denver at DNC08 running a campaign to ensure once and for all that there is no corporate influence in the Democratic Party and they can truly stand unified as a part of the people.

Barack Obama, pledged not to take corporate lobby and PAC money. Not only has the Obama campaign refused money from lobbyists, they've checked records to be sure and in April of '07 returned over $50,000 in contributions tied to lobbyists. Chairman Howard Dean and the DNC followed suit by taking the same pledge.

In contrast, Senator Chuck Schumer of the DSCC and Representative Charles Van Hollen of the DCCC have stood silent and taken millions of dollars for their own Congressional and Senatorial Committees from corporate lobbyists and PAC’s. This is creating a schism in the Democratic Party that must be bridged immediately.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has raised upwards of $109 million in 2008. This is almost $30 million more than what its Republican counterpart, the RNCC has raised. You can see for yourself where this money comes from.

Just arrived last night to an already bustling Democratic Convention in Denver. The night included setting up my air mattress, wolfing down a veggie sub from Jimmy John's, being delayed by Code Pink protests, and watching Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, Robert F.Kennedy Jr. and Colorado Governor Bill Ritter introduce Dave Matthews for a benefit concert organized by global warming specialist Laurie David.

The Big Tent next to the Pepsi Center serves as the hub of anything online related. Flat screen TVs, couches, tables full of bloggers, press, and journalists scatter the bottom level. The second level is designated for panel discussions with a small stage and a few hundred chairs.

The Sunlight Foundation's Gabriela Schneider and Nancy Watzman tried to get into several parties last night but were denied, and they weren't the only ones. Also, Markos over on DailyKos has a great post about his recent invite to a "reactionary corporate PAC money" party. Stay tuned....

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) is under the microscope after his friend and ally Senator Ted Stevens was handed a federal indictment on corruption charges. What's interesting is who is holding the microscope.

The Club for Growth, a conservative PAC known for their hard-hitting commercials, has released a new one hammering Young for his $10 million earmark for a road in Fort Myers, Florida.



Add Young to the list of Alaskan politicians under the microscope (along with Senator Stevens and Governor Sarah Palin).

UPDATE: The event has sold out. We are looking into streaming the presentation as a live podcast.

This Wednesday, August 13 Lawrence Lessig will address an audience at the Commonwealth Club in Silicon Valley. Click here for details and tickets.

In case you can’t make the speech, it will be broadcast on KQED Public Radio at a later date, stay tuned to the blog posts for details of that broadcast.

The good people at CCMC have been working to ensure the passage of AB 583, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act (Hancock, D-East Bay.) They had some good news on Friday when the bill was voted out of the State Senate Appropriations Committee on a 9-6 vote. Here are excerpts from a recent Press Release. Congratulations!

AB 583 would establish a voluntary full public financing system for Secretary of State candidates modeled after the systems that have been working in Arizona and Maine for eight years. AB 583 has now been amended to be funded by voluntary contributions designated on state tax returns and by a registration fee of $350 a year on lobbyists, lobbying firms, and lobbyist employers, the same as in Illinois. Currently lobbyists only pay $25 every two years in California, one of the lowest rates in the country.

Connecticut’s legislature passed a Clean Money bill in 2006 that is so popular that 215 out of 225 candidates have indicated they will use it. Arizona and Maine started public-financing state elections 8 years ago. North Carolina, New Mexico, and New Jersey all have Clean Money pilot programs. Speaking after the Committee vote, Assemblymember Hancock said, “It has been a long and hard road, but I am deeply pleased that AB 583 is now moving to the Senate Floor. This reform is a critical step to helping restore the voters’ confidence in government and I trust that the rest of my colleagues in the Senate will recognize its necessity.”

“Secretary of State candidates, like all other candidates, have to spend huge amounts of time raising money for their campaigns from private contributors,” said Julie Rajan, Executive Director of the California Clean Money Campaign, the sponsor of the bill. “Californians would have more faith in their government if candidates could instead spend more time reaching out to voters and discussing issues that matter to them.”

AB 583 is supported by a wide range of organizations, from good government groups like the League of Women Voters of California, California Common Cause, and CALPIRG to groups representing diverse Californian interests such as Sierra Club California, the Consumer Federation of California, the Equal Justice Society, the California Nurses Association, and Gray Panthers California. Over 80 regular voters from as far as Orange County drove to Sacramento testify at the hearing on Monday.

Wal-Mart is showing off its political savvy of late. Recent reports show that Wal-Mart's PAC, (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. PAC for Responsible Government) is on pace to fork over more money to House democrats than House Republicans for the first time ever. At the same time, they're pressuring employees to support John McCain in November warning that an Obama administration would be "bad for labor." (Note the irony: Wal-Mart organizing its labor not to vote for someone who will allow their labor to organize).

Mixed signals? Perhaps, but it's also a sign that America's biggest corporation has the ability to stay tight with whoever is in power. In the House of Representatives, the Democrats are poised to capture another significant majority, something Wal-Mart is betting on by funneling big checks to key Democrats. Let's call it a smart investment. Or, we could call it bribery. This from the Rothenberg Political Report:

Through June, Wal-Mart’s PAC had contributed to 86 House Democrats this cycle, amounting to just more than one-third of the Caucus. That’s more than the 77 House Democrats Wal-Mart supported in 2006 and the 62 that received PAC money in 2004.

Since 2004, Wal-Mart has given $27,500 to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.), $22,500 to House Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.), $12,000 to Chief Deputy Whip Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), and $20,500 to House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (N.Y.).

Earlier, the Wall Street Journal reported that Wal-Mart managers and executives were warning their employees that an Obama victory in 2008 would be a threat to the corporation because it would invite pressure to unionize.

The Wal-Mart human-resources managers who run the meetings don't specifically tell attendees how to vote in November's election, but make it clear that voting for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama would be tantamount to inviting unions in, according to Wal-Mart employees who attended gatherings in Maryland, Missouri and other states.

"The meeting leader said, 'I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won't have a vote on whether you want a union,'" said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. "I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote," she said.

Wal-Mart is playing it smart. They understand the value of having a Republican president but also of having a Congress who will defend their interests (but not those of their workers').

At the heart of this strategy is the power of incumbency.

In a few cases, it is clear that Wal-Mart values incumbency rather than a political party. For example, in Texas’ 23rd district, Wal-Mart gave then-Rep. Henry Bonilla (R) contributions in 2004 ($7,500) and 2006 ($15,000), but this cycle gave $10,000 to the man who defeated him, Democratic Rep. Ciro Rodriguez.

In Florida’s 22nd district, then-Rep. Clay Shaw (R) received Wal-Mart PAC money in 2004 ($5,000) and 2006 ($10,000), but the company gave $10,000 this cycle to Rep. Ron Klein (D), who defeated Wal-Mart’s candidate in 2006. Similar giving patterns can be seen in Pennsylvania’s 4th district, Indiana’s 2nd, Georgia’s 12th, North Carolina’s 11th and Indiana’s 9th.

In New York’s 24th district, Wal-Mart’s PAC contributed $5,000 for then-Rep. Sherwood Boehlert’s 2004 re-election and $10,000 to Ray Meier, the Republican who ran unsuccessfully to replace him in 2006. But this cycle, Wal-Mart has maxed out ($10,000) to Rep. Michael Arcuri (D), whom it once opposed.

The message Wal-Mart is sending with its political contributions is not a regard for "responsible government" (or whatever harmless sounding PAC title they choose) but rather, a desire to buy power from it.

Many have called for the Democratic beneficiaries to give back the Wal-Mart loot, but no action has since been seen from recipients like Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (M.d), Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.), and House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (N.Y.).

A coalition of government transparency groups (which Change Congress is a part of) is asking the Senate to take a step into the modern era by requiring that all campaign finance reports be filed electronically. Currently, these reports are filed on paper requiring massive amounts of information to be digitized and further delaying valuable info from the public's view. The House of Representatives has been filing electronically for years. Whats the holdup, Senators?

S. 223 was originally introduced by Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold over a year and half ago. Since then it's been blocked, stalled, or shut down by opponents like John Ensign (R-NV).

The Sunlight Foundation has put together a simple web page allowing you to see which Senators are supporting the bill, which are opposed, and how many calls each Senate office has received.

You can take a look at the actual bill over at OpenCongress and follow the supporters and opponents (including industry and activist groups) on Maplight.org.

Passing this bill will shine light into the dark corners of governmental process, and it starts with a couple of phone calls you can make. This should be a no-brainer, but, honestly, how often have you watched your government get no-brainers completely wrong?

Lawrence Lessig dedicated his cover story with Metroactive to addressing political corruption. There is a lot of new ideas in here so even if you've heard him speak on the issue, I hope you'll still give it a peek. Here's an excerpt:

The political scientist will insist that there is no good evidence that money affects results directly. Despite generations of empirical work trying to show a quid pro quo, nothing has been found. Yet even without changing votes, the dynamic can skew Congress' work in predictable ways. This dynamic changes government. The work of Congress gets diverted. The issues that get attention are different from what they otherwise would have been. Think about Bill Gates' claim—"fifty times the amount spent on researching malaria goes to finding a cure for baldness"—and shift the reference to government: In 15 words, you have a picture of Congress.

"But is this really it?" you might ask. "That the dependency of private funding simply shifts the focus of Congress? That's all? And if so, is this really the issue to worry about?"

This is where I got stuck for most of the time that I've thought about this question. No doubt there's a theoretical harm here. But what's its practical effect? Why should a reformer worry about this before she worries about health care? How could a reformer justify working here when there are issues like global warming that need a solution too? One response would be to quibble with the scientists. For not everyone believes the story is this sanguine. Many former members of Congress, for example, are quite convinced that money has a significant effect, certainly on the agenda, but also on the results.

Many believe that money at least buys access. As Sen. Paul Simon put it, when you're handed a stack of telephone messages at the end of the day, most of which are from people you've never heard of, and one from someone who has given you $1,000, "which call do you think you're going to make?"

August is in full swing and some much-needed cash is flowing into Denver's Democratic National Convention (and, incidentally, so is sponsored by a host of corporations) looking to schmooze our lawmakers. Ellen Miller at the Sunlight Foundation posted in May and followed up about the Democrats' plans to ameliorate the rising costs of the DNC at Denver's Pepsi Center with corporate contributions . Like any Pop-concert or Nuggets game at the Center, corporations are snatching up the Center's wall-space, but this time there's an added bonus: Congressional hand-shakes or "access."

In May, The Rocky Mountain News' Kevin Vaughan convincingly suggested the donations to the DNC are a quid pro quo for favors later on:

"Qwest, for example, is interested in a rewrite of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Molson Coors has an interest in tax policy, alcohol advertising and self- regulation, excise taxes on beer and other issues. Coca-Cola is looking at the Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act of 2007 and other issues."

Companies can buy tickets for exclusive convention receptions at upwards of $200,000. One such event honors Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and costs corporate lobbyists a whopping $155,000. This type of funding circumvents existing campaign contribution legislation, in which individuals can donate $2,300 to candidates. Who's in your wallet?