Watchdog Blog

Congress Watch Welcomes New Director

We are happy to introduce the new director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division, David Arkush.

Previously, David was a staff attorney at Public Justice. He has also taught in the Appellate Litigation Program at Georgetown University Law Center, served as Fuchsberg Fellow at Public Citizen Litigation Group, and clerked for the Honorable R. Lanier Anderson, III, on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

Since joining Public Citizen just over a week ago, he hasn't wasted time in holding Congress accountable.  In the Washington Post column, "In the Loop: On K Street," Jeffrey H. Birnbaum covered our cry of foul against the Motion Picture Association of America for hosting movie-night parties for lawmakers and their staffs in violation of new gift rules for lobbyists that Congress passed in September:

"Voters are fed up with lobbyists giving our lawmakers gifts, free dinners, lavish parties and golfing trips -- and Congress finally responded by banning these things," said David Arkush, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division. "But that hasn't stopped the motion picture industry from hosting free movie nights for officials and their staffs."

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Or a free dinner. Or free drinks. Or a free movie.

Freedom of Information, Sort Of

For more than 40 years, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has been the pillar of the framework for transparent government – the primary advocacy instrument for deterring and exposing unchecked executive power.  However, since 9/11, FOIA has been hobbled by a doctrine of secrecy executed with administrative delays and ploys to keep government records “in the shadows.”

The OPEN Government Act, signed into law on December 31, is the first legislative update to FOIA since 1996 and a reassertion of checks and balances.  Now it will be easier for people to get information from their government.  The law provides for an online tracking system for requesters, a government-wide office to deal with disputes and concerns, penalties for offices that take too long to respond, a limit to agency “search” and “duplication” fees, and reimbursement of attorney fees in some situations where requesters must go to court.

But it wasn’t easy.

The FOIA improvement became law only after months of obstruction, foot-dragging and secret holds.  There is no doubt we had some solid champions in Rep. Waxman (D-CA), Sen. Leahy (D-VT), and Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) who kept the bill alive in shark-infested waters.  However, it might have never passed it at all without good, old-fashioned rabble rousing. 

After the bill passed the House in March 2007 by a huge margin, an anonymous senator placed a “secret hold” on it. Proponents decried the stubborn irony of preventing more access to our government records with secret holds and other back-door maneuvering by the White House.  Calls and emails poured into congressional offices, news articles and blog posts demanded the holder be revealed. 

We (the rabble) finally outed Senator Kyl as the secret holder.  Once exposed, Kyl surprisingly began to negotiate. Not surprisingly, Kyl was representing the terms of the White House.  Still, the bill began to move, and finally passed the Senate by unanimous consent. 

But it was not yet time for champagne.

It turned out that there were some issues with the bill that passed.  Some of us suspected foul play and poison pills . . . more noise and negotiations ensued.  Suddenly an imperfect, but passable fix bill emerged in December.  It was quickly pushed through at congressional warp speed with veto-proof support.  Perhaps everybody needed a win – to quiet the rabble.  In the end, even Bush could not refuse to sign the bill into law.

But this hard-fought battle is only a half-victory.

To be sure, the new law will tear down some of the bureaucratic blockade often used intentionally to prevent government operations from seeing the light of day.  Still, even with this victory, the rule-making authority of the executive branch makes it possible for the “War on Terror” to continue to be used to obviate the “informed consent of the governed."  The Ashcroft doctrine of withholding documents as long as some argument for a “sound legal basis” exists still stands.  This policy is a reversal of the Clinton-Reno instruction to officials to interpret FOIA in favor of disclosure – unless it was “reasonably foreseeable that disclosure could be harmful.”

We can expect the Bush-Cheney Administration will use every tactic available to keep their deeds under a cloak of secrecy.  Ready the rabble.

Doolittle Quits

My favorite role model of an unethical Congressman, Rep. John Doolittle (R-Cal.) - who is under close investigation by the FBI for corruption (even had his house raided) - has decided not to seek another term of office and will retire in 2008. We hear he will make his announcement in about an hour.

Doolittle joins the ranks of a wave of members of Congress who have retired last year or will retire this year, following corruption scandals and the lobbying and ethics reform drive. There is still the possibility of conviction and another stint in a different public house awaiting Doolittle.

Scary Movie Night

Public Citizen and Americans for Fairness in Lending teamed up to invite people host a scary movie night in the spirit of Halloween.  We offered to supply hosts with a copy of Maxed Out (while supplies lasted), our report "The Arbitration Trap: How Credit Card Companies Ensnare Consumers," a discussion guide and party favors if they invited friends and family over to share horror stories of consumers being haunted by credit card companies.

The response has been amazing.  From Alaska to Maine and from Wisconsin to Texas, people signed up to host movie nights.  And they are not just happening in living rooms.  People are hosting movie nights at high schools, universities, churches, community centers and even one overseas military base.  Before long, we ran out of our supply of free DVDs, but people still wanted to educate others about this issue and so either bought or rented a copy to screen.

Here is some of the feedback we have received from hosts so far:

"My guests and I couldn't believe what credit card companies are doing with these arbitration clauses.  I cut my card up and am looking for one that does not use them."
-Michael from Illinois

"I've decided to cut back on my credit card use because I'm furious with the shady business tactics they use with us. I'm really glad I signed up for the movie night and will try to reorganize it again for maximum effect."
-Holiday from California

"Maxed Out movie night was great! ...we paused the movie several times to discuss what the movie was talking about...We have decided to get involved with the college and high school kids and make this a huge event."
-Nanette from Oregon

Interested in hosting a Maxed Out Movie Night?  Sign up here.  If you find a copy of Maxed Out, we will send you an event kit with everything you will need.

Intel Withdraws Class Action Ballot Initiative

A big win for the little guys! This week, Intel and its big-business allies at the California Chamber of Commerce and the misleadingly-named “Civil Justice Association of California” (CJAC) withdrew their ballot initiative aimed at rolling back Californians’ rights in court. The “time wasn't right,” said Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy.

Why such an abrupt surrender? Perhaps it was the 30,000 faxes citizens organized by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights sent to Intel’s board of directors. Perhaps it was the sluggish fundraising. Or maybe the flurry of countermeasures filed in response, from a competing initiative enshrining the right to the class action to the “No Say, No Pay” act that would force top executives to disclose how much they pay themselves and allow their shareholders to dock their pay. Terrifying! Intel might also have been smarting from the initiative’s tendency to remind consumers of its egregiously racist advertisement. Or maybe it was simply the fact that this unpopular measure had no chance of passing.

Whatever the cause, we congratulate the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights for its success, and Californians for keeping their constitutional rights!

Edwards Agrees to Opt In

Edwards is the latest candidate to agree to use the presidential public financing system if he is the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee also opts into the system. 

The Washington Post rightly gives Edwards kudos, and notes that he joins Obama and McCain in making the pledge. 

How about the others?

Until now Clinton has hedged, saying she would “consider” it.  Any candidate who says they support public funding of elections has an opportunity to walk the talk now.  Time to bird-dog.

Congress Delivers on Lobbying and Ethics Reform!

Finally – real ethics reform passed in Congress!  Yesterday the Senate approved S. 1 – the “Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007” – with a veto-proof majority of 83 to 14. On Tuesday, the House also passed the bill with flying colors by 411 to 8.

This terrific legislation will give the public important new information about the cozy relationships between industry lobbyists and members of Congress, and limit the outrageous gifts and travel junkets that laid the groundwork for the culture of corruption on Capitol Hill.   

Today marks the final chapter of a long struggle. We first kicked off the drive to fix Capitol Hill over three years ago. Back then, our “wish list” of reforms was largely ignored by members of Congress and the media – even laughed at as a political impossibility. Then Jack Abramoff’s world – and that of many prominent members of Congress – started to unravel. 

As the investigations into kickbacks and bribes became indictments, our call for reform – and the increased public disgust with Washington – became more and more difficult to ignore. When Abramoff worked out a plea deal in January 2006 to name those whom he bribed to the FBI, you’d have thought the gig was up. But the leadership of the 109th Congress burrowed into the warm sand like ostriches and ignored the need for reform.  In return for their indifference, the voters changed up the Congress in 2006, citing corruption as a top concern.

But institutional change is hard even for a Congress elected on a promise to “end the culture of corruption.” As the bill moved forward, the “K Street” crowd lobbied hard, warning members not to bite the hands that keep lawmakers fat and happy. Public Citizen’s activists did not back down, sending thousands of faxes, emails and making hundreds of call to the Hill to tell Congress it must see this through. 

What opposition?

This past week the House finally passed the long-awaited lobbying reform bill.  After months of wrangling, significant reforms in the relationship between lobbyists and Congress passed overwhelmingly. 

Check out Craig Holman's excellent piece in The Politico.  Here's what Craig has to say about those who fought the reforms:

The curmudgeons were those in the middle layer of the caucus – folks who have been around Capitol Hill for 10 or 20 years. Members such as Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) and Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.) railed against the reforms. These lawmakers have close fundraising relationships with the lobbying corps and perhaps also are eyeing million-dollar lobbying jobs in the near future. Hastings, now serving his eighth term, scoffed at the reformers, who “want Congress to be in sackcloth and ashes.”

The old bulls’ opposition was so vocal that Democratic leaders continued to water down the bill to buy their votes. In the most tragic cut of all, a back-room deal was worked out to strip the reform bill of its revolving door restrictions in exchange for a vote to send the measure to the floor. But Abercrombie et al. still continued to decry other provisions, such as the bundling disclosure, threatening to kill the measure on the floor.

Though these guys still voted against the reform bill, they were about the only ones. The measure passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 396-22.

This is a hard-won victory that we share with our allies in the House, our coalition partners, the voices of reason in the media and blogosphere, and most of all, with our very committed activists. 

Now let's make sure the members of the conference committee don't shred these reforms when joining the Senate and House versions of the bills.

Who’s the Best at Growing the Grassroots?

Check it out! The Hill newspaper recently published its list of the greatest growers of the grassroots and Public Citizen is featured three times; more than any other organization!

First, The Hill names Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook and suggests we “could have a lot more clout in a Congress that is aggressively targeting federal agencies and corporate America.”  We’ll keep the pressure up to ensure we accomplish as much as possible.

Second is Congress Watch Lobbyist, Craig Holman.  The Hill calls him “the go-to guy on campaign finance.”  Lean more about the span of his work from election reform and lobbying & ethics reform.

Last but not least, Global Trade Watch Director Lori Wallach rounds out the list of those who are mobilizing the grassroots.  "Since early in the Clinton administration, Wallach has been a key player," leading the fight for fairness and justice in global trade policy.

We must thank all of our dedicated activists who make our work effective and helping to create change.

Want to join our activist network?  Sign up here.

Dancing in the Streets of the Nation's Capital

Today we are celebrating a hard-won victory.  The U.S. House of Representatives finally voted to restore voting rights to the citizens of Washington, D.C.!  The D.C. Voting Rights Act, which provides voting representation in the House for D.C., passed 241-177 this afternoon.

House passage of this bill not only is historic, it also is one of the more interesting tales of strange bedfellows and political brokering.  One of the long-standing issues preventing a statutory fix for D.C.’s lack of representation were objections raised by some in the Republican party over what would be a guaranteed seat for the Democrats.  This bill eliminated partisan bickering by providing a new seat for each party. 

The D.C. Voting Rights Act grows the House to 437 seats – one for D.C. and another for Utah.  Utah (a majority Republican state) has longed for another seat since the last census deprived them of a fourth anticipated representative (I am told the U.S. Census Bureau refused to count the missionaries on travel).  This clever DC-Utah match was first made by Rep. Tom Davis (D-Va.) who introduced the bill and worked magic on it in the less-than-receptive last Congress.

Eventually Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton came along and joined Davis on the bill, after her party’s concerns that the lone Democrat in Utah might be ousted were quelled.  The Democrats wanted Rep. Matheson safe – otherwise it would be a 2 for 1, right?  So, two proposals were floated and the agreed upon solution was to have the Utah legislature pass a four-district map that worked for both parties.  The 109th Congress was drawing to a close and Utah legislators had but a few weeks to get a contingent redistricting map passed.  Remarkably, they succeeded.  Unfortunately, the House did not, though the bill actually made it through committee and got within spitting distance of the House floor last December before the end of the 109th Congress.

The bill faced less resistance this year, but still hit some bumps in the road.  A few weeks ago a few members of the House tried to tack on a repeal of the D.C. gun ban.  House leaders pulled the bill to regroup and prevent other killer amendments.  The bill got a new number and headed back to the floor today for the victorious vote.

Rep. Davis, Del. Norton, D.C. Mayor Fenty and others should be thanked for their tremendous leadership on D.C. voting rights.  But it should be noted that the political will behind the bill was largely generated by the powerhouse coalition of diverse civil rights, voting rights, business groups and other public interest organizations (like Public Citizen).  The march towards passage led by a small group of committed folks who work for D.C. Vote has been dogged and masterful. 

And we aren’t done marching yet.

It has been more than 200 years since the citizens of D.C. had a voice in Congress.   Let’s take this bill to the Senate and make it right.

No Taxation Without Representation

On a cold, rainy and windy day, I generally spend as little time outside as possible. But yesterday, in spite of the damp and dreary conditions, I joined nearly 5,000 people to march to the Capitol and demand the same basic right guaranteed to all other Americans -- the right to be represented in Congress.

When I moved to D.C. almost two years ago, one of my biggest concerns was that I would have to give up my right to representation. What was the point of being able to walk to Capitol Hill if you didn't have a member of Congress to visit?

So when I learned that Public Citizen was co-sponsoring a D.C. Voting Rights Rally, I gladly braved the wind and joined thousands of others in chanting "Free D.C.!" It was quite a sight--a sea of people marching towards the Capitol to demand the right to vote.

"No taxation without representation!" we chanted. This basic principle is found in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.  D.C. citizens made it clear that they will not rest until that promise is finally kept.

Congress has the opportunity to fulfill the promise now. The D.C. Voting Rights Act, H.R. 1433, introduced by Delegate Norton and co-sponsored by 18 voting members, will give D.C. a voting representative in the House, and a fourth representative to Utah, due to the state's growing population, and to eliminate the issue of partisan politics (the D.C. rep. will likely be a Democrat, while the Utah rep. is expected to be a Republican). The bipartisan bill has been held up by procedural technicalities, and that needs to end. There is no good reason to continue depriving D.C. citizens of a vote in Congress. I was proud to be part of such a large movement, and I hope Congress got the message: we will not stop until we have voting rights.

The New Dog on the Blog

Welcome to our new and improved Watchdog Blog.

This dog covers all Congress Watch issues and campaigns, not just money and politics.  We aren’t going to let up on exposing political corruption, but now we will cover all of the juicy stuff in our bailiwick – critical issues like civil justice, including access to courts and consumer advocacy.  If government or corporate accountability is in question, or when other vital reforms are needed, you will read about it here.

In addition to the freshly groomed appearance of the Watchdog, it also now has syndication by both RSS feed and email.  You can subscribe to receive all Watchdog Blog posts, or if you prefer, you can choose to receive only posts on Money & Politics or Civil Justice issues.

It’s also MUCH easier to participate.  If you can’t remember your comment login and password, don’t worry.  Now all you need to join the discussion is a name, an email, and an opinion.

Just hit comments and let’s begin the conversation.   

Clinton Is Ready to Break Free

This just in from the Associated Press . . .

(AP) A day after her campaign announced a record breaking fundraising haul, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday she would support public funding of campaigns if elected president next year.

At an event where she picked up the endorsement of New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, the New York senator said she would continue the fundraising pace that helped bring in $26 million for her presidential bid between January 1 and March 31. But, Clinton said, she hoped a different system could one day be enacted.

"I believe we have to move, eventually in our country, toward a system of public financing that really works for candidates running for federal office. I will support that as president," she said. (more)

Now, will the other presidential candidates pledge to support a system of public funding of elections like Fair Elections?

The Solution to the Money Problem Introduced

Today Public Citizen joined with congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle and a broad coalition of civic groups to uproot the problem of money in politics. Senators Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) announced the introduction of the Fair Elections Now Act [listen] to establish public funds for senatorial elections.  This bold and important bill would transform federal elections for the U.S. Senate from a business enterprise into a contest of ideas focused on our nation's challenges. 

It’s plain that the cost of campaigns for Senate (and all other offices) is out-of-sight.  Over the last past three election cycles, the average cost of the 10 most expensive Senate races has more than doubled, from $16.9 million in 2002 to $34.9 million in 2006.  This escalation in costs continues today, and candidates will have to spend more and more time trying to raise enough money to compete.  Enough is enough.  We cannot allow our government to keep spiraling out of the hands of ordinary Americans.

The Fair Elections Now Act would create a voluntary system through which participating candidates - those who establish their credibility by collecting enough qualifying contributions and who then pledge not to accept private contributions - would receive public funds for the primary and general elections.  Participants would also be eligible for free media vouchers and discounted commercial advertising rates.  The bill is patterned on successful efforts to reduce the impact of money on the election process in Arizona, Maine, and elsewhere.

Public funding of congressional elections is a huge break for the American taxpayer. It would cost just a fraction of one percent of the annual federal budget. But it would produce lawmakers who would not feel obligated to repay donors with costly tax loopholes, special earmarks and other boondoggles that drain billions of taxpayer dollars from the Treasury.

Last year, we fought to clean up the corruption in Washington. The public took notice, and then took action, culminating on November 7, when voters chose to put an end to the culture of corruption.  The new Congress is responding to the call for change by debating a variety of worthwhile ethics and lobbying reforms. 

Some of these first-line improvements are expected to pass in the coming weeks - but none of these will lower our gas prices, the cost of prescription drugs or student loans  - all inflated by tax-breaks and special corporate giveaways served up by lobbyists and well-heeled contributors. 

The only lasting antidote to the corrupting influence that comes with privately funded elections is to publicly fund them with a system of fair and clean elections.  Thanks to Senators Durbin and Specter, we are on our way to a brighter future.

New Man on the Hill Shows All

The AP reports, Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) has fulfilled a unique campaign promise.  At end of each day, his office posts a schedule of what he did and with whom he met.

Constituents can see how much time he is in the gym or who is joining him for lunch.  For instance, at 2:15pm on January 30, 2007, he met with with Lyndsey Layton of the Washington Post for an interview.

Such transparency is a remarkable step forward for government accountability and helps put pressure on other senators to open up about how they spend their time.  They are, after all, our public servants and unless they have something to hide, they ought to follow his lead.   

Wondering why your senator doesn't do the same?  Why not ask?

Click here to find your Senators' phone number, or call the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

Let us know what you hear by commenting to this blog below.

A Victory for Voters - the Senate Delivers Real Reform

(Listen to my podcast: click here [mp3])

Last night the Senate brought back its lobbying and ethics reform bill from the grave, finally approving a sweeping measure that contains more than I had expected.  It was looking grim yesterday, as a partisan fight had broken out the day before which threatened to kill the whole bill.

The stand-off was over a dispute between Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on whether the Senate would take a vote on a "line-item" veto proposal desired by President Bush.  Our activists and other concerned citizens then flooded the Capitol with calls demanding an immediate vote on real lobbying and ethics reform.

Throughout the afternoon and into the evening, the Senate leaders negotiated an agreement that eventually brought the bill back to life. McConnell got a promise on a later vote on a watered-down “line-item” veto bill – and we got a series of strengthening amendments. The bill:

It's the public financing, stupid!

In a surprising development, The Hill reported yesterday that Republican Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio) has been discussing public financing of congressional elections with Democratic Sens. Richard Durbin (Ill.) and Christopher Dodd (Conn.), and might join them in co-sponsoring  a public financing bill. Said the prescient GOPer: “Maybe it is the answer. Too much of our time is spent raising money, time spent campaigning, time buying TV ads. Everyone’s out there trying to raise money… until we deal with this issue, you’re going to continue to have problems.”

Give that man a cigar! We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.

While any public financing plan will face an awfully tough slog in a Congress so controlled and corrupted by special interest money, the support of a vocal Republican senator promises to change the dynamic considerably. A related problem that will need to be tackled is the strange disconnect, reviewed here by Kevin Drum, between the popularity of public financing for state elections and the perception here in Washington that the public hates the idea. Hmmmm. Could members of Congress perhaps be getting their information from corporate lobbyists?

Back to Voinovich for a final thought: it’s worth noting that in addition to considering public financing, he is also talking up lack of enforcement of current lobbying rules.

“How are we enforcing our laws? Things are filed, and, in some cases, nothing’s done about it,” Voinovich lamented, calling the notion of exempting lobbyist-sponsored fundraisers from the congressional gift ban “ridiculous.”

Once again, we couldn’t agree more. The irony here, though, is that the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics is none other than… yes, you guessed it… Sen. George Voinovich! So what IS up with that whole enforcement thing, George?

-Gordon Clark