July 2008

Rolling back their “landmark” reforms

How did this
not get more attention?

With reporting deadlines looming, congressional officers have
issued revised guidelines that ease some of the lobbying disclosure
requirements enacted last year.

The revised guidance, issued by the Clerk of the House and
Secretary of the Senate, relaxed the rules for disclosure
of lobbyist contributions to parties at this summer’s Democratic
and Republican national conventions, among other
changes.

So, just as the Democratic convention is getting
more and more behind in fundraising, they make it easier for
lobbyists for pay for the parties that they can’t afford to pay
for. How bad is it? From the
Wall Street Journal

Under the new guidelines, “it’s hard to envision any
event at the conventions that would trigger disclosure,”
said Kenneth Gross, an attorney at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
& Flom LLP who advises lobbyists on complying with ethics
rules. “This relieves lobbyists from tracking and reporting much
information about attending or paying for events involving public
officials, that would have been required before.”

Just remember this when you see all the promises. What I wonder
is where the outrage is.

Recently, Matt Stoller at OpenLeft noted that transparency is a place for bipartisan coalitions:

Transparency is one of the few places where there really is a bipartisan alliance.  Newt Gingrich created Thomas, the web resources for legislation, and the Republicans do have a history of advocating for open government and new models of communication, including C-Span, direct mail, and web communication.  Some progressive Democrats do as well, but the old school top-down Democrats elected under the good government influences of the 1970s tend towards restricting political participation.

A number of conservative groups, under the umbrella of  Show Me The Spending, have been pushing the idea of requiring state governments, check the progress here, to put all spending on the web, modeled on the Coburn-Obama:

With your assistance and the help of a wide-ranging coalition of organizations, Congress passed the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, creating a website (now located at www.usaspending.gov) where visitors can search for federal grant and contract spending.  This was a great victory for government transparency, but now we need to replicate this win in all 50 states.

The basic idea is that every disbursement by the state government would be recorded. The amount, the date, the recipient, etc. This is not a partisan issue, although it creates the context for populist revolts. In Washington state, a law was passed through both Democratic controlled houses and signed by a Democratic governor.

Even better, this can be done by governors through executive order. Once people and the press start using that, there will be a constituency that will prevent a bad governor from repealing. And once we achieve transparency at the state level, we can push it down into the municipalities.

As I said, this creates conditions that support a populist revolt. Grover Norquist has described each of these as little earmarks that can be exposed, and it provides the record that you can wrap around the neck of corrupt politicians.

We need this kind of stuff. Let’s go to work.

We are seeing a pattern at the DSCC

Last week,
Talking Points Memo caught the DSCC at-best skirting campaign
finance laws in Oregon. Even TPM doesn’t buy DSCC spin.

This week, they are at it again, but it is Mississippi. This ad
is running (sorry for the poor quality. This guy videotaped his
television)

As you can see, the ad ends with a DSCC bug, but has the
“likeness” of Ronnie Musgrove. 
Roger Wicker’s campaign documents that this is not stock
footage, but actually shot last week with DSCC and Musgrove
staff:

The ad featuring Ronnie Musgrove was filmed on
Wednesday, July 9, at the Madison County Economic Development
Authority (MCEDA) and on the Canton square, according to MCEDA
officials. […]

On July 9 Ronnie Musgrove and the Democrat
Senatorial Committee coordinated a film shoot on the Canton Square
and in the offices of the Madison County Economic Development
Authority, less than a week before the ad began running. Contact
info for MCEDA:
http://www.madisoncountyeda.com/board_staff.html

Wicker’s campaign notes that the total of the buy plus previous
expenditures surpasses the legal limit for coordinated
activity:

The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) requires
coordination between a campaign and a National Committee like the
DSCC not to exceed $180,800. The DSCC ad on behalf of Ronnie
Musgrove is valued at an estimated $240,214 (not counting
production costs,
view coordinated expenditures.)  This ad combined with
previous coordinated expenditures with the DSCC ($55,133 in first
quarter) surpasses the legal limits by $114,547.

This is just crime. The DSCC is knowingly (and now
systematically, based on the Oregon example) violating campaign
finance laws.

Who is next? North Carolina? Alaska? Is this what a Democratic
Congress would bring?

Let’s not find out. Help
Roger Wicker.

Crossposted from
The Next Right

Last week, Talking Points Memo caught the DSCC at-best skirting campaign finance laws in Oregon. Even TPM doesn’t buy DSCC spin.

This week, they are at it again, but it is Mississippi. This ad is running (sorry for the poor quality. This guy videotaped his television)

As you can see, the ad ends with a DSCC bug, but has the "likeness" of Ronnie Musgrove.  Roger Wicker’s campaign documents that this is not stock footage, but actually shot last week with DSCC and Musgrove staff:

The ad featuring Ronnie Musgrove was filmed on Wednesday, July 9, at the Madison County Economic Development Authority (MCEDA) and on the Canton square, according to MCEDA officials. […]

On July 9 Ronnie Musgrove and the Democrat Senatorial Committee coordinated a film shoot on the Canton Square and in the offices of the Madison County Economic Development Authority, less than a week before the ad began running. Contact info for MCEDA: http://www.madisoncountyeda.com/board_staff.html

Wicker’s campaign notes that the total of the buy plus previous expenditures surpasses the legal limit for coordinated activity:

The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) requires coordination between a campaign and a National Committee like the DSCC not to exceed $180,800. The DSCC ad on behalf of Ronnie Musgrove is valued at an estimated $240,214 (not counting production costs, view coordinated expenditures.)  This ad combined with previous coordinated expenditures with the DSCC ($55,133 in first quarter) surpasses the legal limits by $114,547.

This is just crime. The DSCC is knowingly (and now systematically, based on the Oregon example) violating campaign finance laws.

Who is next? North Carolina? Alaska? Is this what a Democratic Congress would bring?

Let’s not find out. Help Roger Wicker.

Here’s a lesson that you will hear again and again. Union leaders take care of themselves before their workers. From today’s WSJ:

Public records based on the SEIU‘s own filings show that the SEIU National Industry Pension plan – which covers some 101,000 workers – was only 75% funded in 2006. Put another way, the plan had only three-fourths of the money it needs to meet its retirement obligations. And the national chapter is only the start. Some 13 local SEIU pension plans in 2006 were less than 80% funded; several didn’t reach 65%.

The bosses, on the other hand, have over-capitalized pensions:

On the other hand, SEIU leaders are highly attentive to their own pension funding. A separate fund run by the national union, this one covering the benefits of SEIU officers, was 103% funded in 2006. The top SEIU guns are set for their golden years.

You might need more than 100% if, say, the stock market were to suffer for a couple of years.

Andy Stern, however, has figured out a way to cook the books based on a formula that is not even in effect:

The SEIU is now disputing some of these figures, claiming the information it publicly filed is wrong. It now claims its national plan was 92% funded in 2006, and as of January 1, 2008, was 96% funded. Here’s the catch: The union says these new numbers are based on calculations required under a 2006 pension reform that hasn’t yet taken effect. It didn’t release its new math either, though we’re eager to see it.

In general, union pensions are a sleeper issue. It is part of the story behind Card Check. It is an untold story in the UAW-GM agreement. And it is always the same story: union bosses paying them and their buddies off and shafting their workers.

Keep a GOP House seat and expose corrupt Illinois Democrats

Marty Ozinga is a
businessman who grew his family concrete business into the largest
concrete company in the country. But from this ad, he looks like a
regular guy.

The Crypt has the details about the race:

Fresh off a quarter where he raised over $800,000 from
individual donors, concrete magnate Martin Ozinga III is up with
the first ad in the race in the campaign to succeed retiring Rep.
Jerry Weller (R-Ill.)

His opponent is an establishment Democrat Illinois political who
… Marty outraised through the hard work he learned at the family
business:

Ozinga is facing a hotly-contested
race against state Senate Majority Leader Debbie Halvorson (D).
Halvorson announced yesterday that she raised about $400,000 over
the last quarter — about half of Ozinga’s total — but still holds
a small cash-on-hand advantage over Ozinga, who only entered the
race in April.

This ought to be a Republican seat, and with a well-known
politician tied into the Blagoyevich operation, we have a very good
chance of keeping it. And Ozinga looks and feels like a new kind of
Republican, and he is getting the blocking and tackling right in
this race.

Give Marty a hand and keep another Richard Daley, Barack Obama,
Emil “It’s
steak, not pork” Jones, Rod Blagoyevich style crooked Democrat
out of Congress.

Crossposted from
The Next Right.

Marty Ozinga is a businessman who grew his family concrete business into the largest concrete company in the country. But from this ad, he looks like a regular guy.

The Crypt has the details about the race:

Fresh off a quarter where he raised over $800,000 from individual donors, concrete magnate Martin Ozinga III is up with the first ad in the race in the campaign to succeed retiring Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.)

His opponent is an establishment Democrat Illinois political who … Marty outraised through the hard work he learned at the family business:

Ozinga is facing a hotly-contested race against state Senate Majority Leader Debbie Halvorson (D). Halvorson announced yesterday that she raised about $400,000 over the last quarter — about half of Ozinga’s total — but still holds a small cash-on-hand advantage over Ozinga, who only entered the race in April.

This ought to be a Republican seat, but with a well-known politician tied into the Blagoyevich operation, we have a very good chance of keeping it. And Ozinga looks and feels like a new kind of Republican, and he is getting the blocking and tackling right in this race.

Give Marty a hand and keep another Richard Daley, Barack Obama, Emil "It’s steak, not pork" Jones, Rod Blagoyevich style crooked Democrat out of Congress.

In the somewhat bizarre ongoing fight over House Franking Commission rules, Nancy Pelosi has made it even worse. Yesterday, on her Speaker’s Office blog, she published a letter that she sent to House Republican Leader John Boehner:

Thank you for your letter on the recommendations by Franking Chair Capuano to the Committee on House Administration regarding posting web video external to the House.gov domain. We share the goal of modernizing the antiquated franking regulations to address the rapidly changing realities of communications in the internet age. Like many other Members, I have a blog, use YouTube, Flickr, Facebook, Digg, and other new media to communicate with constituents, and I believe they are vital tools toward increasing transparency and accountability.

I am glad that the speaker uses technology like any normal online activist. But I wonder why she is using technology that violates the rules that Rep. Mike Capuano (D-MA) is proposing. Furthermore, she and other House Democrats have pointed out that these uses are currently in violation of House rules.

Click-through to any of the videos and you will see "political content". Click through to the Facebook site, and you will find advertisements, clear "commercialization".

Do these people understand that they are currently in violation of House rules and are proposing new rules that they are also in violation of? And if they don’t think that there is any problem with their current usage — and their isn’t — why don’t they want to write rules that are in accordance with current practice?

Do these people have any idea what they are doing?

Yesterday, TechDirt, one of the leading technology blogs, played a little defense on the debate about House Franking rules on the use of external sites.

Rep. John Culberson responded in the comments.

If the Ds rule change were in effect today, before I could post this, YOUR website/blog would have to be preapproved as complying with House rules, my post would require a disclaimer that it was "produced by a House office for official purposes," and the CONTENT of my post would have to preapproved by the House Franking Committee as complying with "existing content rules and regulations."

Now, TechDirt is correct that under the current rules, Culberson is not allowed to post this comment at all, but that is the problem. House Democrats are proposing a rule that does not solve the current problem in any meaningful way. Their solution would not allow members and staff to respond to blog posts in comments.

That’s objectively crazy. That’s why the Republican proposal should be adopted, not the luny Democratic one. That should be the debate that we are having.

In typical fashion, House Democrats are trying to pass rules that stifle debate and require regulation. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on House Administraion Kevin Brady. The letter is a response to a debate about whether the House should allow members to use YouTube, first raised by Rep. Kevin McCarthy back in April. From that story:

The reason is simple enough: The Franking Commission frowns on official links to campaign-related Web sites, political parties, advocacy groups and "any site the primary purpose of which is the conduct of commerce."

Well, Capuano’s proposal is a disaster. It creates a list of sites, maintained by the Committee on House Administration that members are allowed to post material. Except, those sites have a caveat:

To the maximum extent possible, official content should not be posted on a website or page where it may appear with commercial or political information or any other information not in compliance with the House’s content guidelines.

Just to make it clear, these guidelines are apply to the content on the external site, not the House site. Would Larry Lessig call that "neanderthal"? This would, for example, not allow members to post information to Facebook, which has ads and, dare I say, political content.

House Republicans have the technologically serious response. Their response letter, attached, says:

Members may use technologies, websites, and services (paid or unpaid) too communicate with their consituents via text, video, or audio so long as the content posted by the Member complies with House rules and Franking Commission regulations. Members may use free communications and networking services so long as these services are available on the same terms and conditions as others.

Only the posted content must comply with House rules, not the whole external site.

Who gets technology? Either, as Capuano noted to the Post, ""To me, the Web is a necessary evil like cellphones," or House Democrats are trying to make it harder for the opposition to get their message out.