Hopefully, we've been reasonably good at returning email. What we're finding is that there is an immense amount of energy out there to achieve the goals that Change Congress stand for and its been an amazing week with Congressman Cooper's pledge as well as many other candidates running for Congress this election cycle. We'll be releasing these candidate's once we confirm their pledge support.

For now, please use this blog as a communication tool. We know its rather simple right now and as we get rolling we'll be adding more pieces to it, but it will serve the purpose of getting the conversation going at the moment. Also, we hope people will post their own updates on research, information and tidbits they're finding about their own members of Congress from their districts.

Thanks again and stay tuned for more as we pick up the pace.

Which state is getting the most federal funds via earmarks, per capita? You'll be surprised.

The folks over at Congressman Jim Cooper's office have put together a brilliant little open-source government bubble chart that shows which states are getting the most pork money through earmarks. The data stems from the group Citizens Against Government Waste who's mission is "to eliminate waste, mismanagement, and inefficiency in the federal government." The organization represents over a million members nationwide and is the legacy of President Reagan's 1982 "Grace Commission."

Alaska takes the cake with over $550 per capita, which is no surprise with projects like the Bridge to Nowhere. Hawaii and North Dakota are right behind with $221 and $208 respectively.

Now, obviously a key component to this comparison is state population as well. States like North Dakota and Hawaii aren't getting hundreds of billions more than California or Texas. The top three recipients of pork money are also the 47th, 48th and 49th least populated states in the U.S. Maine ($22.40) and Wyoming ($27.30), the 40th and 50th least-populated states, actually have very little earmark money and projects flowing to them.

However, it is a good visual to see which states are getting the most money for each of their state citizens. And (embarrassing admission here), I don't know about anyone else but I as soon as I started to examine the bubble chart I began rooting for my home state (Vermont) for securing all that money. It's a shame -- I feel like this grab for federal funds with earmarks is not much different than the grab for open land in the Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889. May the fastest horses win, and everyone else can grovel for the scraps.

Sam Rasoul has become the presumptive Democratic nominee in the VA-6th after fellow Democrat Drew Richardson withdrew from the race early this morning. Rasoul is the lone Change Congress candidate in the race and is one of the few committed to all four pledges. Here are his comments to the Change Congress community:

After a spirited campaign debating the issues all around Virginia's Sixth District, I am honored to be moving forward as the presumptive nominee, allowing me to continue making my case that the lobbyists and special interests hold too much power. We must return that power to the people. I have refused money from PACs and Lobbyists and will continue to do so.

I am proud to support Change Congress and will work hard to achieve the goals of eliminating ear marks, publicly financed elections and increased transparency when I am elected to Congress. You can watch my video statement from yesterday here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HFhGJnVLnE or check out my website at http://www.sam2008.com to learn more about me.

I urge everyone to get behind this movement by supporting Change Congress and the candidates that pledge to work for the real change we need. You can support my campaign through ActBlue here.

Between now and November we need people across the nation to stand up and fight to take back Congress and restore our Constitution.

Sam Rasoul
Democratic Candidate
Virginia's 6th Congressional District

A great piece in Sundays NY Times outlines the growth of soft earmarks in Congressional bills. Basically, a soft earmark is less recognizable and is difficult to identify because it doesn't ask for specific dollar amounts. The ask is more non-descript. It camouflages itself as a suggestion or recommendation. Thus soft earmarks are more able to slide by unnoticed compared to hard earmarks.

Their total cost is not known. But the research service found that they amounted to more than $3 billion in one spending bill alone in 2006, out of 13 annual appropriations bills. And the committee that handles the bill, which involves foreign operations, has increasingly converted hard earmarks to soft ones.

“This shows that even though lawmakers now have to disclose their pet projects, we’re not getting a full accounting of earmarks,” said Ryan Alexander, director of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group in Washington that tracks earmarks. “We may just be looking at the tip of the iceberg.”

The danger in soft earmarks is that there is no process in place to bring them to the light of day, and even if there was, it would be difficult to figure out all of the details as they are by their nature, vague.

Some folks have started a spirited debate about earmarks on our discussion group. Join the discussion so we can hear your $0.02.

We are excited to announce that Diane Benson, a democrat running for Congress in Alaska, has committed to #1, #3 and #4 of the Change Congress pledges. Diane was inspired to run after her son was wounded in Iraq and spent months recovering from a bomb injury in the Army's Walter Reed Hospital. Her story is incredibly inspiring and showed, once again, what Americans are capable of when dedicated to fighting for change in Washington. From her website:

"What are our politicians afraid of? Do I have to do it myself?? I wondered out-loud. A few days later I filed to run."

In 2006, after winning the Democratic Primary, Diane went on to win over 41% of the vote, making history as one of only three opponents to ever come close to unseating Don Young. And her campaign spent only 15% as much as Young on the election.

Diane also caused a first in Alaska history when she forced the incumbent into a live televised debate. She was also the first to successfully challenge the Alaska Federation of Natives policy that prevented opponents of the Congressional incumbent to speak on the floor of the convention. Diane won the majority of votes in the town of Ft. Yukon, Don Young’s claimed hometown.

Diane has a history of challenging incumbents and making the most of what resources she has. An incredible candidate and wonderful inspiration, we've posted her letter to the Change Congress community below.

For too long, Alaskans have suffered at the hands of corrupted elected officials and certain unscrupulous lobbyists. Ironically, in a resource rich state like ours, we have desperate economic concerns. People are paying record high prices for staple food items, and too many rural families feel forced to choose between heating their homes, flying to Fairbanks or Anchorage for health care, or buying food. Clearly, it is time for change.

When I decided to run against long time Congressman Don Young in 2006, many said I faced insurmountable odds. I lacked personal wealth and connections to wealthy insiders that could finance my campaign. I faced a 33 year incumbent that was able to raise millions of dollars from corporate PAC’s and financial backers of the GOP establishment. But, against those odds, the people of Alaska stood by me because we shared a common experience: we all saw first-hand what the corruption in our government was doing to the people of our great state. Our tenacious grassroots efforts secured a surprising 40% of the vote. However, the voices of average Alaskans were muted by corporate bundling. We were outspent 10 to 1 by those ensuring the needs of special interests and wealthy insiders.

It is not corporations themselves that are the problem. American democracy is threatened when corporate managers and the extremely wealthy seek to buy influence by bank-rolling candidates; it erodes the voice and will of the American people.

The story of my candidacy in 2006 is like that of so many progressive candidates from around the country; so many of those that stood up for the American people against corruption and tyranny to create a new generation of bold, visionary leadership for America. Those of us running have to be elected to make the differences in campaign finance reform we wish to see. Therein is our challenge.

The survival of democracy requires we change. But, to do so the American people must be engaged in our government. The good news is, more progressive candidates help to inspire that. The trick is, keeping good candidates in the game. Progressive candidates must get elected and to do that, the people must act.

For a more just system, and for a healthy democracy I support a more comprehensive public finance system. I will stand by your cause and fight for change in our government for the American people.

Together, we can truly do better.

Diane Benson
Democrat for Congress, Alaska

Democrat Darcy Burner is causing a ruckus out in Washington state. She has raised over $516K in the first quarter this year, dramatically out pacing the Republican incumbent Dave Reichert for what looks to be a fourth consecutive quarter. Here's the kicker: more than 88% of her donations are from individuals, not from PACs or political parties. She has over 8,800 donors who have only given an average of $156, which means the room for growth within her existing donor pool is (probably) much deeper than Reichert's.

This is exactly the type of change that Change Congress is talking about. Its already happening. People are standing behind, supporting and giving money to candidates who recognize that Washington is broken and needs to be fixed. Darcy is proof of the tidal wave of change that is sweeping this country be it at the national level or at the district level. Those of you in the Washington 8th let us know how things are going.

In case you didn't have a chance to be in Boston two weeks ago, here is Lessig's Change Congress talk at Harvard. Congressman Jim Cooper (D-TN) joined Lessig at this address as well.

We all know there are problems with electronic voting machines. This is one issue, perhaps just outside the immediate scope of focus for Change Congress, but it is intricately tied to much of what we do, like supporting a working democracy. I don't think many disagree that having a system that correctly counts a citizen's vote should be a vertebra in the backbone of an honest democracy.

The bad news is that our leaders in Washington don't feel, for some reason, that its a pressing problem to be resolved. Last week, one of the key bills being brought before Congress to combat the issues surrounding electronic voting machines was voted down. Rep. Rush Holt (D) of New Jersey sponsored the bill which would allow states to receive federal money to move to a paper-balloting system instead of touch-screen or direct recording electronic machines.

Several states and counties have moved on their own from touch-screen machines to optically scanned paper ballots that can be recounted if needed.

"This bill this week, it was all optional," Holt said. "All it was, was reimbursing districts for doing the right thing. ... And by doing the right thing, I mean offering paper-based voting and more, requiring audits."

Here's where it turns political:

On Tuesday, the bill, which needed a two-thirds majority to pass, went down to defeat in the House 239-178, with 223 Democrats in favor and 176 Republican opposed, after the White House sent out a statement opposing the measure. The statement said the administration "strongly opposes" the bill because it would "create a new program that is largely redundant with existing law, and therefore unnecessary, to reimburse States for the costs of making last-minute changes to their voting systems by Election Day 2008."

We know that simply creating a paper trail isn't the silver bullet in solving this issue. However, its a small step in the right direction. Security issues, even to scientists and Silicon Valley, are among the most pressing problems with the current electronic voting machines. This from a NY Times piece this past summer:

Matthew A. Bishop, a professor of computer science at the University of California, Davis, who led the team that tried to compromise the machines, said his group was surprised by how easy it was not only to pick the physical locks on the machines, but also to break through the software defenses meant to block intruders.

Professor Bishop said that all the machines had problems and that one of the biggest was that the manufacturers appeared to have added the security measures after the basic systems had been designed.

By contrast, he said, the best way to create strong defenses is “to build security in from the design, in Phase 1.”

While security and hacker-proof systems remain a top priority of those working on the electronic voting issues, creating a paper trail at least will provide some sort of reference to go back to and investigate possible errors. And, whether its redundant or not, the bottom line is that whatever is in place now is not working and needs to be ratified. Holt's bill was an attempt to create a solution. The White House decided it wasn't a solution and instead of offering ideas on how to deal with the existing problems, simply shut the door and threw away the key.

This community has been having a spirited debate about earmarks over in our Google Group. There are many hurdles when thinking how best to reform the practice of earmarks. The critic's are in agreement that its an abused system due to virtually no oversight and thus has become corrupted. McCain has said that he would be earmarks' "worst nightmare" by vetoing every bill that had an earmark attached. Now he's backing off the position after certain earmarks (that he would veto) were brought to his attention (U.S. aid to Israel and military housing to name a couple).

McCain's back and forth on the earmark issue is reflective of the complexity behind it. On one the hand, individuals and corporations take advantage of the process to gain federal support or business projects. On the other hand communities rely on the earmark process to receive federal funds for community development, transportation, and a multitude of other projects that benefit the community. The problem itself is bigger than any candidate for office. It's something we've relied on for more than 200 years and even our proudest leaders in history were benefiting from arguing on behalf of a young corporate America. I'm not surprised that McCain is spinning his wheels in the muck of the media after making such a swooping indictment of any and all earmarks. The issue is not one that can solved in a soundbite, although voters would like it to believe its all that simple.

There is no efficient manner in which Congress could actually approve every earmark, even in smaller groups. There are too many to number and the government would drown itself in votes around appropriations and grind to a halt. So, McCain's answer that he would "judge on the basis of need" doesn't stack up either. How would the White House efficiently oversee the thousands of projects submitted into budget bills without becoming the equivalent of your worst DMV nightmare? Part of the reason this has become such an efficient (but corrupted) process is because of how easy it is to stick in requests for federal funds in all budget bills without anyone raising a fuss or pointing a finger.

Change Congress is currently diving more deeply into the issue. Right now, we are advocating that candidates support the abolition of earmarks. This does not mean that all candidates who pledge would from this day forward vote against any bill with earmarks. It simply means that if a bill came before Congress pushing for the abolition of earmarks, those who took the pledge would support the bill. This includes options like the one-year moratorium plan that was presented by House republicans only a month ago.

That being said, we are also working to get a better sense of what other strategies are at play around the issue. Our goal is to get a more comprehensive picture of how to solve it by opening up communication with as many different organizations and people at once. We believe there has to be a way to fix the current system and we hope all of you will join in the conversation, pass along your own ideas or research that you've dug up.

Until then, we'll have to smile and chuckle with the candidates who are learning (like us) that fixing the corruptive influence of earmarks is not as easy as a soundbite.

Change Congress' own Jim Cooper of Tennessee was interviewed on Nashville's Liberadio Show and talked about the earmark conundrum and the important issues that the Change Congress community is working on. Congressman Cooper took pledges two through four and was the first member of Congress to sign on.

Those of you in the Tennessee Fightin' Fifth (and anyone else that would like to) let Jim know that you support his effort to fully support public campaigns, reform the earmark process and stand up for transparency in our government.

Republican reformer and past Speaker of the House Newt Gingerich called for a one year moratorium on earmarks as part of his plan to get his party back on track. Actually, its not so much a plan as much as a "plea." But, its worth looking at.

His fourth of "Nine Acts of Real Change" highlights the earmark issue.

Establish an earmark moratorium for one year and pledge to uphold the presidential veto of bills with earmarks through the end of 2009. The American people are fed up with politicians spending their money. They currently believe both parties are equally bad. This is a real opportunity to show the difference.

While we're glad that earmarks made the list, I was hoping that more of the acts would include serious campaign finance reform goals and efforts. We know that Newt is not a big fan of the McCain-Feingold legislation and thinks it should be repealed because it limits the personal freedoms of voters. But the one-year moratorium proposition, as Ellen Miller pointed out in our discussions on the Google Group, is easy to jump behind due to the dirth of other publicized solutions. In the end, she says"proposals for reform have to be realistic. (Yes, they can be idealistic and realistic at the same time.)" While many Republicans, including Gingrich, feel that a one-year moratorium is realistic, many disagree. The fact is, there are fewo solutions being presented so naturally, the one that has gained in popularity, the one-year moratorium, receives the most attention and support.

The issue is not so much whether earmarks should be banned. If that is the goal, are we willing to hand over the decisions on who gets what federal money to the executive branch? Congress would never hand the government money clip over to White House administration officials, not just because they fear losing "the power of the purse," but because they understand that a representative from a district probably has a better idea of what the district needs are compared to an unelected appointee sitting in Washington. Well, we all hope they do anyway.

The issue is whether we can reform the earmark process to limit the corruption oozing from the halls of Congress, especially over the last decade. David Sirota, who worked for the Appropriations Committee, presented two possible starting points on the conundrum of earmark corruption:

1. Don't let the spenders also be the directors. Separate the group of lawmakers that approve spending from the ones that decide how to spend that money. Granted, this is how the process was originally setup but it has (obviously) broken down.

2. Full disclosure on all earmarks. Require full disclosure on all earmarks so that the public and other lawmakers have time to review all of them and know which member of Congress is responsible for each. This will help limit the phantom earmarks that appear at the last moment in bills about to be passed.

I think these are excellent points but am interested to know what others think about them.

We've got a few candidates (four in total) running in Illinois and this little tidbit of news caught my eye today.

After years of languishing in the Illinois legislature, a campaign finance law that would limit pay-to-play politics is moving rapidly. The Senate could vote this week on House Bill 824. Its key provision bans people or businesses that do $50,000 or more in business with the state from donating to the campaign of the official who controls the contract. In other words, it's designed to stop the kind of influence peddling that allegedly has occurred in Gov. Rod Blagojeivich's administration.

.
These are baby steps. We need giant leaps forward. Even Governor Blagojevich has hinted at vetoing the bill, saying it doesn't go far enough in instituting real reform. This is ironic coming from the elected official who's "pay-to-play" allegations are what triggered the bill initially. Whether its a stalling tactic to "protect a practice at the core of [his] unprecedented fundraising success," is debatable.

Meanwhile, the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform (non-partisan) says "the reform community is encouraged" by the new legislation. Supporting organizations supporters include Citizen Action Illinois, the Better Government Association, the Citizen Advocacy Center, Common Cause Illinois, Illinois PIRG, the League of Women Voters of Illinois and Protestants for the Common Good.

Hopefully, this will lead to more action on campaign finance reform within Illinois and will trickle up. If it doesn't, this type of legislation won't keep people from finding loopholes in the near future. Illinois has to build off of this, as we all do.

Christopher Hayes , wrote a piece in a recent issue of The Nation highlighting Change Congress founder Lawrence Lessig and his move from intellectual copyright to political corruption. It's a great piece showing Lessig's own political evolution and how Change Congress (C-C) came to be.

In the article, Lessig lays out the problems with the current system as well as explains some of his vision for how C-C can have an impact right away. He also talks about the ever-narrowing gap between business and government and Change Congress' core mission.

In fighting this corporate socialism, Lessig thinks there are allies to be found among the "intellectually honest" right. He points out that the need to raise money from industry provides an incentive to grow government and maintain regulation as a kind of leverage to extract donations from industry. He's made battling earmarks, a conservative cause célèbre, a Change Congress core mission; the first member of Congress to endorse Change Congress was Jim Cooper, a conservative blue-dog Democrat who is eyed suspiciously by the party's activist base. Lessig's touchstone in his conservative outreach is his father, who struggled every year to meet his company's pension obligations, only to learn years later that big companies like Bethlehem Steel had an exemption in the law so they didn't have to meet the same standards. "Now, from my modern political perspective, that's exactly the thing I think is most outrageous about how the government functions," says Lessig. "And from my dad's perspective, that's the most absurd thing about how government functions."

Big news coming from the DNC this evening as Barack Obama, the Democrat's presumed nominee for 2008, made it crystal clear how seriously his party will take addressing corruption inside the beltway.

"We will not take a dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs," he said. "They will not fund our campaign, they will not run our party, they will not drown out the voices of the American people."

Not only has Obama's campaign taken this pledge but now so has the Democratic Party.

This is good news and a big step forward for Change Congress' goals. Having one of this country's two leading parties refuse donations from PACs and registered lobbyists is a defining moment. This is where we should be heading to keep this government free from special interest control and corruption. Whether or not Democratic candidates will follow the lead of the DNC is yet to be seen and is the real test behind this proclamation, where the rubber meets the road.

However, there is still work to be done. We hope that John McCain and the Republican National Committee will respond in similar fashion, but as of yet there is no official word.

Today, two C-C candidates are squaring off in Maine's First Congressional District. Ethan Striming and Chellie Pingree, both of whom signed the C-C pledge, are battling amongst other Democratic candidates for the open seat left by Rep. Tom Allen who is challenging Republican Susan Collins for governor.

CQ Politics has a brief writeup of the political landscape in Maine's first district and it looks as though the latest polls have favored Pingree in part because of her political history within the state. Strimling, for his part, committed to all four C-C pledges and has run an incredible campaign on a shoestring budget. Pingree, committed to all but the first C-C pledge.

I'm looking for early results before the polls close in Maine. If anyone has any results they'd like to post please do!

We're excited to say that our first Change Congress candidate, Chellie Pingree won her democratic primary last night over Democrat Adam Cote and C-C's other committed candidate, Ethan Strimling. We were thrilled to have two C-C candidates vying for the seat and it's a real testament to the people of Maine's first congressional district and the type of change they want in Washington, D.C. that two C-C candidates were so well represented (well, Pingree a bit more than Strimling when all was said and done).

Both C-C candidates were outstanding and we thank them for participating in perhaps one of the toughest parts of an active democracy: running for elected office. Ethan Strimling ran an incredible campaign on a minuscule budget that depended upon everyday people engaging their neighbors and friends and spreading the word about their candidate. Chellie Pingree, former director of Common Cause and one-time candidate for U.S. Senate, has been actively engaged in working for change for decades in Maine. Thanks so much to both of them for a great race and we'll be watching Chellie as she takes on Republican Charles Summers in November.

Fresh off her special election victory here in the CA 12th Congressional District, Congresswoman Jackie Speier is looking to take on the problem of earmarks. Unexpectedly, Speier asked Republican Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona to begin talking about ways to approach the earmark problem. I think this is a great move on Ms. Speier's part. Earmark reform is an issue that both parties should get behind. The movement from inside the Congress to abolish earmarks is being led by a group of Republicans, of which Flake is a part of. Ms. Speier, while not clearly stating where she falls on the issue, does acknowledge that the practice needs to be curtailed.

Speier, who has been in the House for just two months, says she has been so appalled by her fellow members’ earmarking ways that she has met with Flake to discuss how they can cooperate to curtail the practice.

“The biggest surprise since I’ve been here have been earmarks,” Speier said. “I didn’t realize how insidious it was and how deep it ran and how accepting so many people are of it.”

We'll be interested to see where Congresswoman Speier ends up on the earmark issue. I imagine if she is willing to talk with Flake and other reform-minded Republicans she's also talking with her own party leaders. If any of you would like to contact Congresswoman Speier you can here. Give her a call or drop her a note to let her know you support transparency in government and reforming the earmark process now.

We don't need to tag Jackie Speier's candidate page with any additional info with this news, but it does tell us that we may be able to in the near future, if and when she comes out with a specific stand on cleaning up the corruptive practice.

For the last week we've received some interesting emails and comments from our members about Change Congress's stance on Obama's decision to opt out of public financing. Our basic response is one echoed by some' pundits and those working in the reform movement over the last two decades. It's a tough situation for any candidate to be in. The current public finance system is a mess and desperately needs to be overhauled. Public financing is only one piece of the overall campaign reform puzzle, yet, a vital one. The recent dancing around public funding by McCain and Obama is a situation that no candidate should have to be in -- choosing between a broken system that could cost them the election while gaining positive press or being called a "flip flopper" for opting out of that same broken system.

The current public financing system fails to address major loopholes abused by both parties over the past twenty years. Until this needed reform happens, we're foolish to think that any candidates able to raise more on their own would ever opt-in to a broken system that could end up costing them a victory down the line.

The Big Loophole - the explosion of 527 groups over the past ten years has given rise to the nastiest negative campaigning we have seen in our time. On both sides of the aisle 527 groups have made it their raison d'etre to challenge and accuse candidates not in line with their political ideals, launching powerful, well-funded attacks that can single-handedly change the outcome of an election. While many of these groups do not (and indeed by law cannot) work with or coordinate with a campaign, they are often ideologically aligned with one candidate and are often staffed with members of the same political party

The Big Flaw - the $84 million that public financing offers is not enough to run a presidential campaign in this economy. The problem is not that there is too much money in politics, rather that there is too much of the wrong kind of money in politics -- money from lobbyists and PAC organizations, people who expect favors later on. If we want a public financing system to be legitimate we have to honestly address the shortfalls that this sum of money leaves in its wake; the cost of national advertising on television, radio and internet being a major one. Or the cost of employing a national grassroots staff working in every state in the country. The public financing offer from the government should be realistic compared with the costs of a presidential campaign. If we want candidates to buy into the system, make them a decent offer. They aren't going to accept a used Chevy Malibu when they can buy a new Ferrari with their own money.

Pundits on the right say Obama is a hypocrite, given his pledge to accept public funding earlier in the campaign and then recently deciding not to. Both candidates could be called as such. McCain gladly accepted public financing during the Republican primaries when he was losing and broke, and then petitioned the Federal Election Commission to opt back out when he was winning and wealthy (and now he's opting back IN). Neither are wrong, they are simply doing the expected political shifting based on our broken system.

I can't wait for the day when a well-crafted, mutually agreed-upon, public financing system is finally ready to be implemented. But that day will come only after enough of us stand up to change that system by making it possible for politicians who fight for issues like public financing to win office and take this change to Washington. Change Congress is about working with you and other organizations dedicated to reforming this system from the inside out. The current system isn't working for the people, so it must be changed by the people from the bottom up. You can help, be a part of our movement, help us re-build this broken system. Join us! Its only our government if we work to reclaim it.

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?"

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?

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.).

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).

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....

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.

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.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin wants the American public to believe that she is a strong reformer and a logical teammate for Republican candidate Senator John McCain. Because of her relative freshness to the national political scene I thought I'd put together some background on her reform record.

• Flip-flopped on "Bridge to Nowhere" project.


• Under Palin, Alaska has requested 31 earmarks worth over $197 million according to Senator Ted Stevens' website.
• 
  
• As mayor of Wasillia, Palin hired a Washington lobbyist in order to represent the town. (That lobbyist, Steven Silver, previously had served as an aide to Senator Ted Stevens).


• 90% of campaign contributions during her race for governor came from individuals, not PACs. This will help her argument as being a Washington outsider.


• In that same campaign, Palin accepted over $10,000 from lawyers and lobbyists.


• Palin's Legislative Director has been under scrutiny due to his ties to a Juneau lobbyist who has given Palin's campaign $1500 over the past three years.


• Of the $460K she raised during her campaign only $4,750 was from the oil and gas industry.


• Palin joined forces with Democrats to push through new corporate oil taxes going against industry as well as her own party.


• In early 2007, Palin tried to push an ethics bill through the Alaskan Legislature. SB 19 and 20 were both passed but were watered-down versions of her initial effort.

Regardless of the laundry lists being emailed around about Palin's ability and experience, we're all trying to get to know her as quick as possible. At the moment, if feels as though Palin has dipped in and out of playing the political game while at the same time trying to remain an outsider.

Hiring a Washington lobbyist on behalf of your town of 5,470 is not a compelling argument for a candidate claiming to be a reformer. However, raising taxes on Big Oil and challenging the party line does show either acute political adroitness or a maverick streak.

Based on Palin's green (and thin) record, I wouldn't say she is any more a reformer than your typical politician. And being a reformer at the state level is certainly different than being one at the federal level. But seriously, what did we expect to find after three days of media hype? More is coming I am sure.

I've been to both conventions over the last two weeks. There are obvious differences in the what is being talked about, who is doing the talking and the rhetoric pouring out of politico mouths. But some things are the same, and one of those is the parties.

The parties are everywhere. Sunlight Foundation folks were invited and attended a party put on by the travel, airline and real estate industry last night and talked to a popular lobbyist about why the party was being thrown. The signs, "Vote for Travel! Vote for Hospitality! Vote for Real Estate!" appeared to be more than simply party decorations but rather implied requests to elected officials from major industry groups.

ABCNews was also on the lobbyist trail with a great piece on the parties here in the Twin Cities.

Senator McCain asked that the partying be muted in respect to the hurricanes slamming into the Gulf States but it seems the lobbyists (and many elected officials) didn't hear the message or chose to ignore it.

We'll have more from St.Paul later today.

Prosecutors got more than they bargained for after U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle sentenced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff to four years in prison. The case has shattered the public's confidence in government, said Huvelle.

It also appears to have shattered the former King of K Street.

"I come before you as a broken man," Abramoff said at his sentencing before U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle. "I'm not the same man who happily and arrogantly engaged in a lifestyle of political and business corruption."

He added later that, "My name is the butt of a joke, the source of a laugh and the title of a scandal."

At the same time, Abramoff admits to being a victim of a broken system, someone who thrived in the legal gray area between politics and lobbying. And who does he blame for that broken system? Senator John McCain.

Although Abramoff expressed remorse Thursday, he also has spent his time in prison cooperating with a book that portrays him much differently: as a victim of Washington politics.

The book, set for publication later this month and obtained by The Associated Press, says Abramoff was pressured to plead guilty. The book blames The Washington Post and Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee whose Senate committee investigated Abramoff, for making him the fall guy.

"I never expected that I would have to go to prison," Abramoff says in the book, "until it became clear that the media could not allow this play to close without the hanging of the villain."

Is Abramoff just another victim of a corrupt system or is he the villain who learned how to take advantage of his extraordinary access to top elected officials and the Department of Justice, bribing them to further his own power and influence?

Thursday night, the final night of Republican Convention celebration here in St.Paul, we were invited to a closing party called "It's a Wrap" sponsored by major D.C. lobbying firm Patton Boggs LLP. It was also sponsored by Ford Motor Company, EnCana Energy, Sands Las Vegas Casino Corporation, Oracle, DDC and Fierce, Isakowtiz & Blaylock.

The party was held in the majestic Landmark Center here in St.Paul, just a few steps away from the Xcel Energy Center where the convention speeches were taking place. Upon getting in we toured the grand ballroom and upstairs rooms, all of which were outfitted with open bars and waitresses walking around with niblets of food that looked more like art than tasty morsels (don't worry, they were tasty as well).

I talked to a few folks milling about and finally found someone from the law firm who was willing to answer some of my questions, albeit not on camera because they were forbidden to do so. Oddly, her card read, "Director of Media Relations and Communications." I guess that simply meant she wasn't allowed to actually say anything on the record. I let her know that I was not a member of the media. As soon as I asked her about the party she said, "we're not allowed to get into that." So I asked her about the firm -- what kind of law they focused on and who their clients were. She went through the typical talking points -- offices in countries around the world (including new offices in Abu Dhabi and Qatar), major work in public policy arena, etc., etc. Then she said, "Yeah, we're kind of known as the grand-daddy of lobbying firms." And why not? With the size of the party being put on, who would think otherwise.

How close is Patton Boggs, the "grand-daddy of lobbying firms," to our elected leaders? This from their About Us section of their website:

For more than 40 years, Patton Boggs has maintained a reputation for cutting-edge advocacy by working closely with Congress and regulatory agencies in Washington, litigating in courts across the country, and negotiating business transactions around the world. Our partners include women and men with extensive backgrounds in government service with strong ties to both major political parties, as well as top-flight litigators and individuals with a keen understanding of business and finance.

Clearly, they're proud of their connections to both Democrats and Republicans. And reading through the firm partner's bios, you can see how fast the revolving door between lobbyists and government regulators actually spins.

Edward J. Newbury, Partner: formerly served on several congressional staffs including chief appropriations staff and press secretary to U.S. Representative Frank R. Wolf (R-VA) and associate staff member on the House Appropriations Committee. They proudly tout his profile in a NY Times piece entitled, “Wing-Tipped Migration: Five Prominent Men and How They Got from Congress to K Street.”

Stuart M. Pape, Partner: served in various positions in the Office of the Chief of Counsel at the FDA prior to joining the firm in 1980. He is the former associate chief counsel for food, and from 1978-1979, served as executive assistant to FDA Commissioner Donald Kennedy. Now, he lobbies on behalf of corporations looking to obtain approval of new food ingredients, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices; advising on labeling and advertising of regulated products; assisting in enforcement proceedings initiated by regulatory bodies; and lobbying in connection with legislative consideration of statutory changes to the laws governing FDA-regulated products.

John F. Jonas, Partner: before joining the firm, Jonas served in number of government positions: while serving as counsel to Congressman Pete Stark (CA-13) on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee in 1981, Jonas "played a principal role in the rewriting of statutes concerning the taxation of life insurance companies." Jonas also worked extensively on the 1982, 1984, and 1986 tax laws during his time with the Ways and Means Committee. Now, his focus is...you guessed it: tax law. Concentrating on "representing financial services companies and a wide variety of health care interests before the House Ways and Means Committee, Senate Finance Committee and the Department of the Treasury." Jonas is busy lobbying for the very industry groups he regulated over a decade ago.

Let's be clear. None of these folks broke any laws. This is by no means an indictment of what are arguably some of the most accomplished lawyers in the country. But, this is how Washington works. The point of revealing this revolving door between lobbying groups and those tasked with regulating them is to show why the public, understandably, distrusts the government's ability to get the most important questions of our time, right. If government is supposed to be the counterweight to business and private industry, why would the public have faith in a system that puts both on the same side of the scale?

Parties are well and good. But with every party, every free drink, every gift to regulators (our elected leaders) there comes a hidden expectation: payback, usually in the form of a favorable vote in Congress or within some Congressional committee.

We must begin tackling this problem of corruption today. Corruption in the People's House, in our government, is the first problem. Much like an alcoholic dealing with a failing liver, a crumbling family life and a potential job loss, all of these challenges are connected back to the first problem: alcoholism. Similarly, Congress must deal with corruption first. If we want to solve global warming, the healthcare crisis, a failing economy and the war in Iraq, we must first deal with corruption. All of us play an important role. These elected leaders work for us, not vice versa. Lest we forget we are the ones that have the responsibility to make a change in our government when it continues to get the easy answers utterly wrong.

Change Congress is making that change. You can help by joining us and help show our government that the first problem, the problem of corruption, cannot be ignored.

The former Legislative Director to Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) was arrested this past Monday on 10 corruption counts after giving gifts to several public officials as a reward for their "taking actions beneficial to [his] clients." Doolittle, of course, has been under the microscope after allegedly being tied to fallen lobbyist Jack Abramoff. He's challenging a Justice Department subpoena and hired a attorney formerly with Ken Starr's office to defend himself.

The item that caught my eye in the Wikipedia entry on Doolittle was "Small Towns pressured to hire lobbyists." Doolittle's staff apparently told California municipal employees that hiring a lobbyist "wouldn't hurt." Let's go a few thousand miles north to the town of Wasillia, AK, where then-mayor Sarah Palin hired a Washington lobbyist to give her town a bit more power inside the beltway. Clearly, there seems to be the beginnings of a trend here: state elected leaders using powerful D.C. beltway lobbyists to tap into support (read "money") from the federal government. Indeed, the New York Times noted this trend back in 2006 saying that small towns, municipalities, school districts and transit authorities are, "putting lobbyists on retainer to leverage their local tax dollars into federal tax dollars." Since they aren't getting what they need from the state, they're jumping to the federal level by hiring a lobbyist and hoping to garner more federal funds for their town.

So, what's keeping every town of seven thousand citizens from hiring lobbyists? More importantly, does this change the process and structure of how federal and state governments interact? What this seems to create is a dependency not on the state's internal resources, but instead, on those of the federal government. Instead of working within each of their own state budgets, lobbyists are hired to take the interests (needs) of small town America directly to the federal government in the hopes of securing funding for projects, thus bypassing state government altogether. This threatens the very integrity of the state political structure in that it makes it indebted to Washington, D.C. It's easier to avoid the competition within your state budget when you can hire a lobbyist in D.C. and have access to a bigger pot of potential gold.

The solution to this lies in opening up government. Earmarks, the main tool used by politicians to fund local projects with federal money, can be transparent and be pushed through an approval process allowing others to see who is requesting what money for which projects. Not only will this help clean up corrupt or questionable earmarks but it will also engage people and allow them to take part in a process that has, up until now, been left to the lobbyists, politicians and special interests.

One of the first things you can do is sign our petition asking Congress to overhaul the earmark process, open it up and take the corruptive influences out. Then find three friends who will sign it with you. The only way to change the same-old politics of D.C is to challenge it. That's what we're trying to do here at Change Congress and we hope you'll join us.

According to Rasmussen, the American public is ready to hit the Congressional "Reset" button. In a recent poll 59% of voters said they would like to "throw them [Congress] all out and start over again." Only 17% felt that they should keep their jobs. This is a frightening statistic, especially for the 440 members of Congress who are up for re-election in a mere 29 days. Oh, and it gets better:

Only half (49%) believe that the current Congress is better than individuals selected at random from the phone book. Thirty-three percent (33%) believe a randomly selected group of Americans could do a better job and 19% are not sure.

.

So, hey, you wanna run for Congress? The hardest part is getting your foot (Ferragamo or not) in the door.

More than 90% of Congress will most likely (barring a revolution) retain their positions as the people that speak for us this November 4th. The power of incumbency is tough to beat, especially when gerrymandering allows members of Congress to effectively pick their own voters, not the other way around. Mix in some high name recognition, full staffs funded by tax-payer dollars, easy access to news coverage and an unmatched money machine, and suddenly running for office is reserved for those who are either very wealthy or very crazy (read "courageous"). Seriously, we have a better chance at winning scratch-off tickets than winning a seat for Congress.

As the article notes, the nation's founders believed that Congress should (and would) have a 50% turnover rate, and indeed, for the first 150 years the House of Representatives experienced exactly that. But ever since the 1940's Congress' turnover has been dropping to what it is today, somewhere in the single-digits.

Combine this with the back-to-back approval rating of 9% and you have to admit, it's not a good year to be a member of Congress.

We wanted to be sure everyone knew about a new organization in Canada that is mirroring the work Change Congress is doing. I Believe in Open Canada is building off of the Change Congress model tailored to their own government. The goal is to pressure Canadian politicians to adopt 5 pledges:

1. Support reforms that increase government transparency and accountability. (?) 2. Make campaign promises specific and measurable, and report progress on promises and their metrics at least semi-annually.

3. Publish the content of his or her daily schedule, including meetings with lobbyists and special interest groups.

4. Support reforms allowing free access to scientific and survey data gathered by government institutions.

5. Support reforms that make it easier for Canadians to obtain government information they have a right to know.

A very well put together site and one that we'll be glad to reflect as time goes on. The real goal with the Change Congress effort is to share this idea and technology with everyone and let them use it as they wish in their own governments. So, Canada, you've got some new change-makers on the map.

The largest association in the state of Texas, the Texas Association of Business, pleaded guilty today to a misdemeanor charge, unlawful direct campaign expenditure, and paid $10K in fines to the state. After a six-year investigation into the campaign practices of the TAB's political action committee, this is the last lawsuit they'll have to deal with (unless 2008 turns out to be a especially corrupt election year.)

Apparently, the association's PAC was paying for the salaries of its President Bill Hammond and chief lobbyist Jack Campbell as they traveled around the state convincing voters to support state GOP candidates, attending fundraisers and speaking to the media on behalf of the candidates and their campaigns.

Earlier in 2007 District Judge Mike Lynch dismissed two indictments of TAB after the association spent over $1.7M on mailers and television ads on behalf of state GOP candidates. But now, with Texas redistricting on the table for the 2008 and 2010 state legislatures, the temptation to flood swing districts with political ads is hard to ignore. This latest decision by the district court will (hopefully) keep some of the corporate PAC money out of the airwaves and off voters' front stoops. Let's be honest, however, in today's stock market, paying $10K for pumping over $1.7M into local political races is a steal. Now, these business leaders have a host of state legislators in their back pocket. At least, that is how the public will perceive it. The return on investment is better than owning stock in Google (at least a couple months ago anyway). TAB obviously understood this after they moved their headquarters to the state capitol in 1990.

A closer look at the Texas Association of Business shows, once again, a revolving door between elected officials and lobbyists. Hammond, now President, was formerly a four-term member of the Texas House of Representatives. While there, he authored the Texas Education Agency Sunset Bill that was criticized heavily for opening up failing public schools to control by private entities (corporations, universities, non-profits could all essentially manage a public school under the bill). Two years later, after Hammond had left public office, his old boss, the Speaker of the Texas House, named him to lead the Commission on Higher Education and Global Competitiveness.

This, all while aggressively advocating for specific TAB-endorsed candidates around the state of Texas.

In a rather pathetic show of guilt, TAB lawyer Joe Turner complained that the laws around campaign finance law are just too confusing:

Association attorney Joe Turner called upon the Legislature to clarify "this treacherous area of the law," which he said can be confusing for people like Hammond who must wear multiple hats: salaried employee, representative of a political action committee and citizen.

"This is an accounting nightmare," Turner said.

Ok, i understand that the law might be confusing. But I don't tell the state that the reason I didn't pay any taxes for nine years was because, "Gosh, tax law is just really confusing." It is, but you find someone to guide you through it.

Here's another idea: how about individuals like Hammond and Campbell don't wear four different hats, all of which have severe legal implications if ever worn at the same time. The fact that they knew they had to wear different hats shows they understood the vague, but existent, legal divisions created between each one.

I highly doubt TAB understood that it was breaking the law. Perhaps they thought they were bending it. And ignorance is rarely a ticket out of guilt, which is why TAB agreed to pay the $10K fine and move on. Regardless, they are under the reform microscope for the next few cycles.

Mississippi State and the University of Mississippi rank #1 and #2 respectively when it comes to educational earmarks from the federal government. Yet, both schools are considered Tier 3 schools in the U.S. News & World Report rankings (not the only ranking system but ultimately one of the most utilized). There is more to this story, however.

Of the $2.3 billion in federal earmarks appropriated to colleges and universities during the last fiscal year, MSU received $43 million while the University of Mississippi received $37 million. Its important, when comparing these types of numbers, to remember that alumni as well as endowments are key to figuring which schools are topping the money charts. Clearly, the Ivy League with its multi-billion dollar endowments makes competing as a state-level educational institution somewhat difficult. Indeed, over 76 colleges and universities boast endowments of over $1 billion or more.

Also, there is very little state-level support as Mississippi is one of the poorest states in the country.

Mississippi's status as one of the poorest states in the country makes funding from earmarks crucial to keeping MSU a competitive research institution, he said.

"It is important for poorer states to have the ability to go to Washington and receive funds for things, [where as] in wealthier states, it is all ready available," Schulz said.

And just like donor money, earmark money has specific deliverables. At least, they say it does, but Schulz never really referred to who is holding the school accountable.

Each earmark the school receives is closely guided and monitored to prevent any wasteful spending, he said.

"All of our projects have very specific deliverables," Schulz said. "They're not a blank check - that's sort of a misconception out there."

What would happen if this earmark process was more transparent? What if Schulz made all earmark requests public for both faculty and students to see? The school might be surprised to see a lot of the students actually care about how this money is being spent, and whether they have a say in it. And who knows, if the students had a say, maybe they'd feel empowered to do more to help the school in its struggling areas.

The overarching question is, should the Federal Government support these much less-endowed state schools and institutions so that they can at least compete with the 76 schools sitting on over $1 billion? I would think as long as the money is being tracked and the specific deliverables are being met, why not? Because of the earmark funding, MSU's Sustainable Energy Research Center has become a "competitive force in renewable energy research."

SERC Director William Batchelor said the earmarks have been rapidly used to develop new technologies, creating new renewable energy avenues in Mississippi.

"From an energy perspective, if you're trying to create a new industry, it takes large amounts of money to do so," he said. "By receiving these earmarks, we can utilize our resources that will drive this creation, especially in rural parts of our state that are looking for it," he said.

Batchelor said the earmark has helped the SERC develop three new sources of renewable energy from woody biomasses and human waste.

Seems like a pretty good investment to me.

Amidst the hype of the Powell Obama endorsement, some may not know of the other Powell endorsement also getting some attention: Senator Ted Stevens

Stevens is currently on trial for concealing over $250,000 in gifts from Veco, formerly an oil-services corporation, between 2001 and 2006. Federal prosecutors grilled Stevens on Monday at his trial in Washington, D.C. before the case went under deliberation last week. It looks, as Sunlight Foundation's Ellen Miller points out, that Steven's lawyers have secured a potential victory for their client on what could be viewed a technicality. Unfortunately, the public interest appears not to be of interest to judge Emmet Sullivan.

However, the judge has a lot of interest in the hype of Powell's endorsement of Senator Barack Obama. Why? Powell was a key defense witness in the trial. Bush's former Sect. of State apparently spoke highly of Stevens' calling his character "sterling" and that he, "would never do anything improper."

In the culture of Washington politics I sometimes wonder if character is relative. Have our politicians become immune to recognizing corruption because it is so much a part of their culture? I don't doubt that many of our elected leaders are personally pure in many ways. But in Washington, you have to wonder whether a broken system has broken down their compass of integrity.

A jury in Washington found Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (R) guilty on all seven corruption counts of lying on Senate financial forms and failing to report more than $250,000 in home renovations he received from Veco, formerly an oil company who he maintained close ties to. Stevens could face up to 5 years in prison for each count but will most likely face much less, if any.

The Senator who once referred to the internet as "a series of tubes," is still facing a tough challenger in Mark Begich, former mayor of Anchorage.

Both Presidential candidates called on Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) to step down today in the wake of the senator's guilty verdict in federal court yesterday. Here are the statements:

From Obama:

"It's time to put an end to the corruption and influence-peddling, restore openness and accountability, and finally put government back in the hands of the people it serves. Senator Stevens should step down."

And from McCain:

"It is clear that Senator Stevens has broken his trust with the people and that he should now step down. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will be spurred by these events to redouble their efforts to end this kind of corruption once and for all."

Also, from Governor Palin:

"After being found guilty on seven felony counts, I had hoped Senator Stevens would take the opportunity to do the statesman-like thing and erase the cloud that is covering his Senate seat. He has not done so," she said in a statement released afterward. "Alaskans are grateful for his decades of public service but the time has come for him to step aside. Even if elected on Tuesday, Senator Stevens should step aside to allow a special election to give Alaskans a real choice of who will serve them in Congress."

Based on Stevens' public comments, it seems like he'll stay in the race. Under current law, if he wins re-election on Tuesday he is not required to step down and instead must be removed by a full Senate vote on recommendation by the ethics committee (currently chaired by Senators Barbara Boxer John Cornyn). Regardless, a jury of his peers decided that he was guilty on all seven counts and its time for him move on. As both presidential candidates pointed out in their statements, the trust has been broken.

It's time for a fresh start. It's time for change.

Lessig has an article in this month's Stanford Magazine highlighting what happens when the engine of democracy (specifically Congress) contains a flaw. And that flaw is the "first problem." From the end of the article:

The flaw at the core of the People's House is dependency. Think of the dynamic of the dependency of an alcoholic. The alcoholic may be losing his family, his job, his liver, but we all know he will not solve any of those problems unless he solves his alcoholism first. It's not that alcoholism is the most important problem; it's just the first problem he needs to solve if he is to solve the rest.

There is no end to the problems that we as a nation face—from global warming to Iraq to the economy to media reform to education to broadband growth, even to copyright—but we will not address these problems sensibly until we solve this first problem: our own alcoholism, our own dependency on the way money has corrupted this government.

Corruption, lack of public trust and transparency, and a failure to get the easy public policy decisions wrong all contribute to this flaw.

Senator Barack Obama also mentioned recently what he thought was "flawed" about the Constitution.

This brings up an interesting point: Has calling to question elements of our own Constitution become improper and frowned upon? Are we willing to accept any potential inequalities or, "flaws" in it or do we treat it as the Gospel? The fact that we've amended it twenty-eight times shows that we're willing to add necessary changes calibrating it to a society that is constantly progressing and moving forward.

What will the next amendment be, you might ask. We're hoping that it has something to do with corruption -- it's oldest foe. More from Lessig:

It's not very PC to say, but let's say it: they failed. Many who went to government were drawn for the most venal of reasons. Corruption was at the center of government throughout the country for most of our history—much worse than anything we've ever seen. Daniel Webster, who served in Congress when Congress was considering whether or how to regulate the Bank of the United States, was paid by the Bank of the United States. He wrote to the Bank: “If it be wished that my relation to the bank be continued, it may be well to send me the usual retainers.”

After more than two-hundred years its time to make the Constitution work for the people again. Its time to close the loopholes and begin to tackle this new challenge. Fixing this flaw is the first problem. If we can solve this first problem, we can solve the many others that face us as nation, be it global warming or healthcare.

Nate Silver over at FiveThirtyEight believes that the remaining votes to be counted in the Begich-Stevens Alaska Senate race will favor Begich. The former Democratic mayor of Anchorage remains 3,500 votes behind newly convicted felon Ted Stevens and may end up passing him with the remaining early voting ballots yet to be counted. And there's no reason not to trust Nate's analysis -- his prediction for an Obama victory was dead on.

If you want to help get him out, checkout our petition, "Thanks for the memories, Ted Stevens."

President Elect Obama, during his campaign, pledged for sweeping ethics reform under his administration. Now, as he mounts his transition team he has created “the strictest, the most far-reaching ethics rules of any transition team in history.” So says John Podesta in today's New York Times article.

Obama and his co-chair of his transition team Jon Podesta are abiding by the same principles that guided his campaign for more than two years. What's important here is that the President-elect is taking the necessary steps to clean up the way Washington works by drawing a line between special interests and the government.

Under the rules announced by Mr. Podesta, federal lobbyists will not be allowed to raise money for the transition, nor continue lobbying while working in the transition. In addition, he said that someone who became a lobbyist after being involved in the transition would be prohibited from lobbying the administration on related matters for 12 months.

The goal in this move appears to be two-fold:

(1) to attract those to government who's premier purpose is to serve the public interest, not make a profit.

(2) to earn the trust of the public by slowing the "revolving door" between government and the private sector. This administration understands that restoring trust in government is the most important element in developing sound policies, and for that we applaud them.

Some say this move comes at great expense. It will prevent people with much knowledge and experience on key issues like healthcare and global warming from serving immediately. I would argue that its a worthy expense. As the Brookings Institution's Thomas Mann said, "That is a real cost but it is more than balanced by the strong signal sent by the President-elect. He aspires to attract to government able individuals whose highest priority is to serve the public interest. This is a very constructive step in that direction."

Yet, it's not possible to cut every cord strung between government and the private sector. Just today one of Senator Obama's advisors was reportedly on the board a defense contractor. Former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn is currently serving as Chairman of Public Responsibilities at General Electric, a company that has received $8.8 billion in over 280 defense department contracts. Obama's transition team had no comment about weather this was a conflict of interest, but did say that Nunn's role was "informal" and that he was considered an "outside adviser." Whether or not this is seen as conflict of interest need not supersede the fact that the only reason it is considered such is because of these new self-imposed ethics rules the Obama transition team have adopted.

We do hope that these new rules are obeyed and not bent to accommodate the desired needs of the transition team. After all, the problem with self-imposed rules is that the only one enforcing them is the one who needs them.

The fine folks over at Public Campaign have put together a great summary of the progress being made in pushing publicly funded elections at the state and local level. Often called Voter Owned Elections, clean elections are one way to take big money out of the campaign process. The report shows public support of clean elections for local and state races. This is helping to build a bottom-up movement dedicated to changing the way big money impacts not just local elections but eventually federal as well.

Voters given the choice chose Clean Elections candidates, demonstrating strong support at the local level for the system. That's vital because Clean Elections candidates typically meet voters one on one to discuss the issues. They must get a set number of modest donations-usually five dollars-from people in their community in order to qualify for a grant to pay for their campaign. Once qualified, the Clean Elections candidate adheres to strict spending limits and stops accepting private contributions. That means the donation from the teacher is as important as the one from the corporate CEO.

Not too shabby. Checkout their full results page for more info.

The Chief Technology Officer in Obama's administration will be a central piece in his cabinet. As technology becomes more connected to everything from healthcare (putting records online so that they are more accessible) to the economy and environment (green collar jobs through innovation), the CTO could be intricately involved with every department in the administration. And he or she will be handling some of the most important issues directly impacting government transparency such as internet access/broadband growth, copyright policy and energy innovation.

The CTO cannot just be a "getting stuff done" workhorse, but also someone who understands the policy behind issues like net neutrality and DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). Can you imagine Obama hiring a CTO who doesn't know how to operate a Blackberry? Or doesn't use the internet for anything but email? There would be an uproar in Silicon Valley. So why not start the process by asking the people what the most important issues are facing us from a technological perspective? Done.

The Obama team has put up a new site letting "we the people" submit and rank the most important issues facing the incoming Chief Tech Officer. Each user receives 10 votes to spread as they wish across a host of user-submitted issues. Honestly, I had a hard time choosing how to divy up my votes and ended up changing them a few times. I liked ALL of the ideas -- from supporting Net Neutrality to having a live online bidding process for government contracts.

The point here is to show what the public thinks the biggest issues facing us technologically and to do it in an open and transparent way. Kudos to the Obama camp for launching this. I feel confident that they're listening and will follow through on what the public says.

Amidst all of the energy and fervor around the 2008 elections, one thing remained the same: money wins elections. Once again, the candidates with the most money were able to take home victory in not just the Presidential race (Obama outspent McCain two-to-one) but in Senate and Congressional races around the country. The Center for Responsible Politics released numbers last week demonstrating that no matter how much enthusiasm a candidate might have, it all comes down to money in the end.

As CRP's Executive Director Sheila Krumholz revealed, in 9 out of 10 contests the best-funded candidates won their races. This matches a trend that is familiar to those tracking the connection between money and politics:

Continuing a trend seen election cycle after election cycle, the biggest spender was victorious in 397 of 426 decided House races and 30 of 32 settled Senate races. On Election Day 2006, top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. In 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to the biggest spender, as did 88 percent of Senate seats.

Despite Congressional approval ratings dangling in the single digits, 95% of House incumbents won re-election and 93% of Senate incumbents were welcomed back by voters. How did they do it? Money.

These financial shackles that require massive amounts of money just to mount a viable candidacy for the House or Senate are dangerous in two ways:

(1) it keeps out regular Americans from ever being able to run for office because they can't raise enough money to stay competitive.

(2) it in debts winning candidates to their benefactors. As Krumholz says, "The politicians who were just elected potentially owe their campaign contributors billions of dollars for helping them win." How they repay them is part of the problem.

Here are some figures to chew on:

- average cost of winning a House seat in 2008: $1.1 million

- average cost of winning a Senate seat in 2008: $6.5 million.

- 1 in 4: number of House seats where incumbent faced no financial opposition.

- CRP's estimated total cost of U.S. elections this year: $5.3 billion making it the most expensive election in American history.

- 93%: House races where top-spender won.

- 94%: Senate races where top-spender won.

My first reaction to this was, "What could we fund with $5.3 billion?" Healthcare? A more efficient and stringent regulatory system? Education? But then I realized, Johnson & Johnson spent $5.1 billion on selling the world soaps, shampoos and toothpastes in just the third quarter of 2008. McDonald's spent more than $689 million selling the world hamburgers and french fries in 2006. And Proctor and Gamble spent over $7.9 billion selling the wo