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.

The folks at MAPLight.org issued a report today titled 'Remote Control,' which shows the geographic origin, down to zip code, of campaign contributions for all members of the U.S. House of Representatives. The most surprising finding? Legislators raised about four out of every five dollars in campaign funds from outside of where their constituents live.

According to the research, members of the House of Representatives raised $700 million in campaign funds from 2005-2007. A whopping $551 million of these funds, or 79%, came from out-of-district. $146 million of these funds, or 21%, came from in-district. The remaining $3 million of campaign funds (0.5%) could not be definitively located as in-district or out-of-district. From the report:

"With out-of-district fundraising at a staggering 80%, the problem is not with a few individual House members. This report provides evidence that our campaign finance system is broken," said Daniel Newman, MAPLight.org's co-founder and executive director. "To win an election, a House candidate has to raise an average of $1.3 million in campaign funds--that's $2,500 every working day for an entire two year term. With such a herculean fundraising effort required, what time and attention do Representatives have left to address the interests of the voters they represent?"

See the full report at MAPLight.org.

My interest has been peaked of late. What is the fate of publicly funded campaigns given the "Obama phenomenon?" A recent NPR article Did Obama Kill Public Campaign Finance? asks the question, "Is something rotten in the state of public financing for presidential campaigns?"

The article continues:

Sen. John McCain, one of the most vocal proponents of campaign finance reform, is being hoisted by his own petard by choosing to accept federal funding for his general election campaign. Meanwhile, Sen. Barack Obama, the choice of the Democratic Party — the very party that cried out for finance reform in the wake of the Watergate scandal — has chosen to bypass public funds and, as a result, is pummeling McCain in the fundraising arena.

Irony alert: The Republican standard-bearer is using federal grants, while the Democrat extols the free-market virtues of individual campaign donations.

One could argue that Obama's campaign is 'publicly funded,' after all, he and the DNC have forgone Lobby and PAC money and the majority of his campaign contributions come from small donations made by lots of people. However, the "Obama phenomenon" does not take into account an average person seeking office. This is where public funding would level the playing field so that ordinary citizens could run for office. Obama's 'star quality' and fund raising ability, plus the current political climate, cloud the argument for killing public funding.

McCain opted in to public funds, thus agreeing to cap out at $84 million for his campaign. The RNC supplements his allocated funds by raising money and they do take Lobby and PAC money. Neither candidate, in my opinion, represents 'clean money.'

No matter which candidate wins the White House, both will be faced with determining the fate of public campaign financing, in fact, both have an obligation. At Change Congress, we would also argue that the issue needs to go beyond Presidential and on to Congressional elections -- a more difficult battle.

A smart conversation took place on KQED's Forum with Scott Shafer. I encourage you all to have listen and weigh in on the conversation through our comments section. Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics is on the panel and directs people to the OpenSecrets site so you can follow the money yourself. You can listen in below:

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.

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.

Recent articles in the Washington Post and New York Times raise concerns about potential electoral problems this November. The areas of concern may sound familiar to Change Congress readers: security of electronic voting machines, lack of an auditable paper trail, voter registration, and voter identification & disenfranchisement. Similar concerns were raised in the run up to the 2004 & 2006 elections. In the aftermath of both the 2004 and 2006 elections there were numerous and significant claims of voter disenfranchisement and voting irregularities. Some went so far as to claim that these irregularities had altered the outcome of the 2004 presidential election. These claims, while never having been fully proven in a court of law or of public opinion, are nonetheless unsettling when considered in the light of the problems that accompanied the 2000 presidential election.

Why is it that we are hearing similar stories eight years later?

Potential answers can be found in the origins of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, the chief sponsor of the Senate bill, described HAVA as "the first Civil Rights Act of the 21st century." HAVA was a response to the election problems of 2000. The explicit goal of HAVA was to fix America's electoral system by replacing outdated voting systems with newer, more reliable machines and procedures. The act created the Election Assistance Commission to administer Federal elections, to establish a set of election standards and to allocate $3.9 billion to be used for investing in new voting equipment.

Lobbying, Campaign Contributions and Conflicts of Interest

HAVA's goals were noble but the results have been questionable. Some of the most vilified political figures in recent memory are deeply associated with the creation of the act. Former Ohio Congressman Bob Ney was the chief sponsor of the House bill. Robert F. Kennedy Jr described Ney's HAVA involvement:

"The primary author and steward of HAVA was Rep. Bob Ney, the GOP chairman of the powerful U.S. House Administration Committee. Ney had close ties to the now-disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, whose firm received at least $275,000 from Diebold to lobby for its touch-screen machines. Ney's former chief of staff, David DiStefano, also worked as a registered lobbyist for Diebold, receiving at least $180,000 from the firm to lobby for HAVA and 'other election reform issues.' Ney - who accepted campaign contributions from DiStefano and counted Diebold's then-CEO O'Dell among his constituents - made sure that HAVA strongly favored the use of the company's machines."

For the record, both Abramoff and Ney are convicted federal felons as a result of accepting money and gifts in exchange for political favors.

Kennedy also found a series of deep financial and professional ties between lawmakers and voting machine manufacturers. "Diebold, along with its employees and their families, has contributed at least $300,000 to GOP candidates and party funds since 1998." Additionally, Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, who also voted in favor of HAVA, was the former chair of one of the four major voting equipment manufacturers.

HAVA Unchanged Since 2002 + Diebold Today

From what I was able to gather from an hour and a half of research on Google, Maplight.org and the Library of Congress site, the Help America Vote Act has not been modified once since its initial passage in 2002. Of the more than 50 HAVA-related bills that have been introduced in the House and Senate since 2002 none have passed.

The Diebold board of directors acted to put an end to all executive level political giving in 2004 stating that Diebold officials "may not make contributions to, directly or indirectly, any political candidate, party, election issue or cause, or participate in any political activities, except for voting." Despite the ban, Diebold executives continued to give money to Republican campaigns. Since that time Diebold has changed the name of its voting equipment subsidiary to Premier Election Solutions and while executive level campaign contributions appear to have come to an end, state level lobbying efforts continue. In addition to Diebold/Premier, other voting equipment manufacturers have engaged in an aggressive lobbying campaign in order to counter negative public opinion and to win business from states which have been allocated hundreds of millions in HAVA funds.

Saving our Democracy: A Call for Transparency

Given the importance of the issue, the integrity of our democracy, there is a surprising lack of information available on the link between campaign finance, lobbying and the voting records of politicians. The data exists but it's certainly not easily accessible. Our friends at OpenSecrets and MapLight have been doing a tremendous job of increasing the transparency in politics but neither has data that goes back to 2002 and the HAVA vote. If you have access to useful tools or information related to HAVA, please let us know.

In general our political system and the economy of influence that drives it need to be more open and accessible. Political contributions by PACs, lobbyists and corporations make up a significant proportion of money in politics and we need a more transparent system that will allow us to more easily determine if the drafting of legislation and votes are being traded for cash. There are plenty of tools out there that are being developed for this, including the array that the Sunlight Foundation have been working on. What we need to do is integrate these tools into our daily lives. Sunlight Foundation is collecting comments on the recent federal bailout bill. You can add your own here.

Given theses facts, it's very easy to believe that Diebold and other voting equipment manufacturers gave money to well placed politicians in order to influence legislation that was worth $3.9 billion to their industry.

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.

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?

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?

Sign the petition.