Watchdog Blog

The Next President on Open Government

We’re all fed up with lengths to which the Bush Administration has gone to hide its business from public scrutiny.  But how open will our next president be?  Our coalition, the Sunshine Week alliance, asked all the presidential candidates to complete a survey in last October about their positions on open government and freedom of information issues. 

Of the remaining three candidates, only Sen. Hillary Clinton responded (read her answers here [pdf]).  To get the other candidates’ positions, a team of researchers poured over articles, speeches and debate transcripts, and any other records they could find.

Below are brief overviews -- read the complete findings here.

How to End Government Secrecy

Yesterday was the much-anticipated webcast on government secrecy and the newest online resources available for uncovering information (watch the archived event here).

Remember the checks and balances and our freedoms of speech and press?  They were written into the Constitution and Bill of Rights to ensure we had the tools to hold government accountable.

So, what happened?  How do you explain how the Bush Administration has gotten away with so much unnecessary secrecy over the past seven years?

Joan Claybrook Speaks Out on Secrecy

What are the effects of so much unnecessary secrecy in our government?  Joan Claybrook, President of Public Citizen, explains why it is a threat to democracy and what Congress needs to do about it:

An open and accountable government is a cornerstone of our democracy. As Americans, it is our right and our duty to know how government operates; transparency is one of the great checks we have against corruption and tyranny. Yet, during the past seven years, President Bush has gone to extremes to keep the workings of his administration in the shadows, away from public scrutiny.

Get Your Sunglasses - It's Sunshine Week

Today marks the beginning of Sunshine Week 2008!

It's long been painfully clear that the Bush Administration does not believe in an open democratic government.  It has used one ruse after another to keep information from the public -- from “national security” to “executive privilege” to plain old stonewalling.  That's why this Sunshine Week we are joining print, broadcast and online news media, civic groups, libraries, non-profits, schools and individuals interested in the public's right to know, to call on the federal government to end its campaign of secrecy.

Some events you should check out include:

• Tomorrow, March 18, Associated Press President and CEO Tom Curley will address Freedom of Information and other open government issues during a Sunshine Week dinner event at The National Press Club.  Learn more.
• This Wednesday, March 19, OpenTheGovernment.org, Public Citizen and others sponsor a free webcast from 1:00 to 2:30 pm EDT on excessive government secrecy. You can register to watch it here, or if you have a Facebook account, click here.
• On Thursday, March 20, the Sunlight Foundation and Omidyar Network are hosting a webcast of Prof. Lawrence Lessig, who will introduce a plan called "Change Congress," designed to increase congressional transparency.

Check out other events happening in D.C. and states across the country.

Also, be sure to urge you members of Congress to support our agenda for a more open, transparent government.

Bush, Sunshine and Apple Pie

What does it mean to have an open government?  As a catch phrase, it is appealing, like apple pie.  It seems especially American and downright fundamental: “a government by and for the people.”  It suggests that we are in power, and that through transparency we can avoid tyranny and oppression.

In truth, it is an ideal – one for which we are still reaching.  The Constitution, and the First Amendment in particular, provides the principles, but it has taken the efforts of many over two centuries to create a legal and practical framework for some transparency in government.  We might prefer that our elected officials spend their time pondering how to make the government more accountable to the people (instead of fundraising), but unfortunately, this is rarely the case.  Often we have gained more access through legislation, such as the Freedom of Information Act, enacted in response to some crisis of trust in our public officials.

Now is such a time.

Whose Records are They?

Today's Washington Post published a letter to the editor written by our own Angela Canterbury, advocacy director for Public Citizen's Congress Watch, in response to an editorial about the battle for the Clinton White House records: 

The Feb. 8 editorial "Clinton Records Watch" pointed out that there is a process to follow regarding the release of presidential records. However, one cannot ignore the fact that the process has been altered to give former presidents, former vice presidents and their representatives veto power over the release of records.

In 2001, President Bush issued Executive Order 13233, an expansive order that eviscerated the post-Watergate Presidential Records Act, which made presidential records the property of the government, and then the public.

Legislation to repeal the order passed the House by a veto-proof margin but is stuck in the Senate. First Sen. Jim Bunning held and then released the bill, the Presidential Records Act Amendments (H.R. 1255/S. 886), and now Sen. Jeff Sessions is blocking it. A single senator should not be allowed to stand between the public and its right to know.

Moreover, all of the senators running for president should demonstrate their interest in transparency by co-sponsoring this bill. So far, Sen. Barack Obama is the only one who has done so. Sens. John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton should join him and help to pass the bill to show the American public that they truly believe presidential records belong to the people -- not the president.

Why is Sessions Keeping Bush's Secrets?

Some presidents just have more to hide than others. 

We have been working to expose the secrets of the current administration, but now another senator is standing in the way.  Senator Jeff Sessions is the latest to block a bill that would return the presidential records to the American people.   

Bush's Executive Order 13233 was a direct attack on the Presidential Records Act of 1978, a law passed in the wake of Watergate that makes presidential records the property of the American people.  A president should not be allowed to legislate and lock away his records with a stroke of a pen.

But this is not just about Bush.  It's about the records of ALL presidents.

The bipartisan bill to undo the Bush order has passed the House by a veto-proof margin and is close to becoming a law, but Senator Sessions is still standing in between the people and their right to know. 

What you can do: Call Senator Sessions' office and ask why he is blocking S. 886 and tell him to stop obstructing a vote.

Our Right to Know? Over Whose Dead Body?

Bush recently told Israeli reporters: “I'll be dead before the true history of the Bush administration is written.” 

Over his dead body?  Perhaps he meant that his "good works" would be told later, but as long as we let him keep his iron grip on presidential records, it could be several generations of Bushes before we know much of anything.

In 2001, Bush signed Executive Order 13233 to allow current and previous presidents to withhold documents and records without explanation INDEFINITELY.  What’s more, the order extends the presidents’ authority to control the records under to presidential family members, and vice presidents.

This unprecedented expansion of executive power flouts FOIA, precedent, and the principles of the Constitution.  The order, drafted by former Attorney General and close Bush friend Alberto Gonzales, eviscerates the post-Watergate Presidential Records Act, which made presidential records the property of the government, and then the public.  Our right to know should not be subject to the whims of the executive.

Legislation to repeal the order passed the House, but has been repeatedly blocked in the Senate.  First Senator Bunning was named as the holder. After feeling some pressure, Sen. Bunning removed his hold, and then friends of ours in the Senate attempted again to bring the bill up for a vote just before the holiday break.  It didn’t happen because, we are told, there is another objection from another unknown senator – no doubt carrying more water for the President. 

Sound familiar?

Meanwhile, the nation is consumed by one of the more thrilling primary elections in memory.  But where do the presidential candidates stand on the Presidential Records Act and presidential secrecy?  Senator Clinton recently was accused, perhaps unfairly, of preventing public access to Clinton Administration records.  Still, Senator Clinton is conspicuously not a cosponsor of the bill that would revoke the Bush Executive Order, the Presidential Records Act Amendments.

Why not? 

It’s been nearly two months since Philipe Reines, a spokesman for Clinton's Senate office, told the Tribune that "Senator Clinton believes that President Bush's 2001 Executive Order was wholly unnecessary and is inconsistent with the spirit of the Presidential Records Act, and therefore supports legislative efforts to reverse that order."

We’re still waiting for Clinton, and most of the other presidential candidates, to demonstrate that they believe the records belong to the people, not the President.  So far, only Senator Obama has put his name on the bill.

So while the world is enthralled with the presidential horse race, presidential records are hidden away and transparency transgressed again and again.  We can’t forget that much of our government remains in the hands of a few, until we take it back – again and again.

Gillespie, A Revolving Door Lobbyist in the White House

Listen to our own Laura MacCleery discuss Bush’s new counselor, Enron and Viacom lobbyist Ed Gillespie on NPR’s Marketplace.   As Laura notes, Enron indirectly paid Gillespie $700,000 in 2001 alone, through several conservative front groups, enabling Gillespie to publicly flack for the White House Energy plan.  In addition, Public Citizen found that Viacom, the parent company of the CBS and UPN networks, retained Quinn Gillespie for two years – and $720,000 – to push for relaxed rules on the number and reach of television stations a single company could own.

Public Citizen’s Joan Claybrook had this to say about the Gillespie appointment:

We are disappointed that the president has appointed a lobbyist who has represented the narrow interests of business to be White House counselor, rather than someone who could bring a broader perspective to the White House. Given President’s Bush’s abysmal poll results, he needs someone with a different view.

Ed Gillespie has long been part of the Bush money machine, helping to raise hundreds of millions of dollars from business interests for Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign. Gillespie’s lobbying clients have included some of the nation’s business giants. He fought on behalf of Enron against efforts to re-regulate the electricity market, which would have ended Enron’s price-gouging. He pushed for the energy legislation enacted in 2005, which included some $25 billion in corporate subsidies for oil, gas nuclear and coal interests. On behalf of financial service clients, he pushed for watering down accounting reforms. On behalf of Chrysler, he fought against improvement of fuel economy standards. On behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, he fought for limiting citizen access to the courts. In his new position as counselor to the president, he will be forging policy that likely will undermine public needs.

By moving from lobbyist to chair of the Republican National Committee, back to lobbyist and then to White House counselor, he is a prime example of a revolving door that has spun out of control.

Learn more about Gillespie’s lengthy history [pdf] working for corporations to dismantle government oversight and advantage clients in consumer complaints and federal fiscal policy. 

Bush continues to co-opt the government for big corporate interests by appointing cronies and hacks to offices of influence.  The consolidation of private interests in the public domain is hobbling consumer protections for health and safety.  It’s dangerous, and expensive.  In 2006, taxpayers paid $64 billion dollars in earmarks for special interests.

Cheney Battles Executive Branch Agency Trying to Collect Classified Data

Vice President Dick Cheney must love his secrets. He doesn’t even like to share with his own team.

Check out the latest: Apparently, Cheney has exempted himself from the PRESIDENTIAL order setting up procedures for protecting classified information, according to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

For the past four years, Cheney’s office has refused to cooperate with a National Archives and Records Administration office charged with monitoring classification in the executive branch, according to stories in the June 22 Washington Post and New York Times. 

Not only did the vice president’s office not comply with a routine annual request for data on staff classification of internal documents, but in 2004, it also blocked an on-site inspection of records that other executive branch agencies go through, according to a letter to the vice president [pdf] sent by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

And after the Archives office continued to complain about the matter, Cheney’s staff proposed eliminating the office.

“I know the vice president wants to operate with unprecedented secrecy,” Waxman told The New York Times. “But this is absurd. This order is designed to keep classified information safe. His argument is really that he’s not part of the executive branch, so he doesn’t have to comply.”

Libby Lied, but Justice Served

Yesterday, some justice was served when I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was sentenced to two and a half years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for lying and otherwise obstructing the investigation into the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity. The former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, Libby was one of the highest-ranking officials in the government. U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton noted that "individuals have to understand that when you transgress the law there are consequences," stressing the seriousness of Libby's crimes as a reason for the stiff sentence, according to NPR.

Libby will find out next week when he has to report to prison. On June 14, the judge will decide whether Libby can remain free while appealing the verdict. In the meanwhile, I imagine the White House will be diverting attention from the possible pardon they will give Libby.

Forgive me, but a presidential pardon would be inexcusable.

Who’s Making Global Warming Political Today? The Smithsonian

Apparently concerned about upsetting lawmakers or the Bush administration, the Smithsonian toned down an Arctic climate change exhibit last year – doing such things as altering the text of the exhibit to make the relationship between global warming and humans seem more uncertain, according to The Associated Press.

Robert Sullivan, who used to be the associate director in charge of exhibitions at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History (he resigned last fall), says the museum’s leaders didn’t want to anger politicians, although he did acknowledge that he knew of no one in the administration who pressured the Smithsonian.

“The obsession with getting the next allocation and appropriation was so intense that anything that might upset the Congress or the White House was being looked at very carefully,” Sullivan said.

The White House says that it had “no role” in the exhibit.

NAM weakened accountability for its members

We’ve had a lot to say recently about Michael Baroody, President Bush’s nominee to head the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Today, Public Citizen released a report that shows just how poor a choice he is for such a critical agency.

Last year, while Baroody was running the National Association of Manufacturers’ (NAM) lobbying and advocacy efforts, NAM and its allies pressed the CPSC to weaken the agency’s primary enforcement regulation, which has been responsible for more than 80 percent of the agency's fines since 1997, about $33 million.  NAM members and affiliates have paid more than half of those penalties, about $18 million in fines.

The safeguard in question requires companies to report when they find out about dangerous products defects.  It helps the agency decide when a recall is needed.

The report describes a number of cases where manufacturers allegedly defied the requirements.  Graco Children’s Products paid a record $4 million penalty in 2005, settling charges that it failed to report numerous possible defects in its products, which killed six babies and caused injuries including skull fractures, concussions and broken bones in others.  General Electric’s vice chairman is on NAM’s board.  It paid $1 million for not reporting possible defects and problems with some of its dishwashers, despite knowing about more than 100 incidents, including nearly 50 fires, between 1992 and 1998.

It seems simple enough – consumers, especially parents, should be informed when merchandise they purchased is dangerous.  Especially if children are getting killed, companies shouldn’t be allowed to bury reports that their products are dangerous.  But the changes that NAM and its allies sought will almost certainly do just that, reducing the number of reports from companies, leading to more deaths and injuries due to defective products.

The upshot is that a Baroody confirmation would put consumers in harm's way while NAM member companies remain unaccountable.

Tell your senators that Baroody is a bad choice for consumer safety.

Bush Steps Up His Attack on the Regulatory System, Endangering Important Health and Safety Protections

When Democrats won control of the Senate and the House of Representatives in November, President Bush was backed into a corner.

For the first time since he took office in 2001, the all-powerful president, who appeared to have a blank check from lawmakers to do as he pleased, finally has had to worry that Congress would challenge his policies, launch investigations into his actions and harshly question his agency heads.

One of his latest and most disturbing power grabs is his stepped-up attack on the federal regulatory system - which establishes critical health, environmental, occupational, vehicle and other protections for citizens.

Toothless in Washington: CPSC Stalls While Children Die from Dangerous Toys

A two-part series that ran today and Saturday in the Chicago Tribune tells of the outrageous neglect of child safety by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and toy makers. 

Super-powerful magnets hidden in Magnetix and other toys fall out of the plastic pieces and have almost irresistible attraction for young children, who swallow them. The magnets attract each other as they move through the intestines, ripping bullet-like holes in the intestinal wall and admitting deadly bacteria. The toy defects have led to more than two dozen life-threatening injuries and at least one death. Kenny Sweet, Jr., a Seattle toddler, was killed by nine magnets in his intestines.

Despite the efforts of parents and caregivers to repeatedly call the issue to the attention of federal regulators who could initiate a recall, the CPSC at first ignored the seriousness of the complaints. When it did finally act, its authority to take decisive steps was muddled by Reagan-era laws that badly weaken the agency, handcuffing its ability to require a recall.

It also appears that the toy makers were aware of the complaints about the severe injuries from the magnets, yet the recall notices they finally sent following negotiations with the CPSC were weak and confusingly worded. The Tribune’s investigation found that many of the recalled versions remain on toy store shelves even today.

The article is a wake-up call to Congress to fix CPSC’s authority so that it can mandate recalls of hazardous products.  It also makes it painfully clear that confirmation of Bush’s nominee, manufacturing association lobbyist Michael Baroody, would be nothing short of a cataclysm for the safety of American families.

Justice Department Refuses to Release Documents

Even with all the negative attention it’s received over the U.S. attorney firings, the Justice Department still has the nerve to refuse to release papers related to the scandal.

According to The Washington Post, the Justice Department has released almost 6,000 pages of documents relevant to the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys. But it refuses to release 171 documents to Congress.

The withheld papers include e-mails that discuss media strategies, drafts of letters to Capitol Hill, memos and other documents, according to the Post.

Can’t imagine that Congress is going to like this …

Wrong Man(ufacturer) for the Job

You've read here about Michael Baroody, the latest in a parade of industry cronies nominated by the White House. This time it’s to fill the empty chairman’s seat at the critically important Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Baroody, who was in charge of lobbying for the 14,000-member National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and has a long career as an industry shill and anti-regulatory politicker, spent most of his career working to tilt the playing field away from consumer safety and keep corporations from being held accountable for any damages they cause.

Today, a coalition of consumer groups, including Public Citizen, released highlights of Baroody’s record and of NAM’s actions during his time with them, showing why he is a bad choice to head up an agency dedicated to public health and safety. The story was also picked up in The Hill.

Under Baroody, NAM repeatedly pushed to weaken the CPSC, which safeguards consumer products, including most children’s products.

Take, for example, baby walkers – a source of numerous accidents involving infants. The paper released today details NAM’s hostility to basic safety protections on baby walkers, among other issues. The walkers’ original design lacked any locking mechanisms or other protective devices. Babies in them could, and did, injure themselves by falling down stairways and off ledges.

NAM’s “solution”? Blame parents for improper supervision – and fight new standards that would correct obvious, serious and potentially fatal shortcomings in the walkers.

We chronicled stories involving the victims of harmful products as well. What happened to four-year-old Lee Ann Gryc is a particularly tragic example. Lee Ann has scars on more than a fifth of her body after her pajama top burst into flames while she was reaching across an electric stove. The pajama maker had cut costs by not treating the clothing with flame-retardants, although the fabric they use is almost as flammable as newspaper.

The Flammable Fabrics Act, which CPSC enforces, makes it illegal in most cases to peddle flammable sleepwear. NAM and other groups often tried to gut that rule and others, blaming parents or consumers for injuries and deaths.

Check out our information page on why Baroody is not the right man(ufacturer) for the job. Then tell your senators that you don’t want child safety jeopardized by a “loyal Bushie” and industry shill like Baroody.

You Never Know What’s Secret in the Bush Administration

Intelligence officials have spent months figuring out just how many contractors work for intelligence agencies, including the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and others, according to The New York Times.

Apparently, there’s some concern about how reliant the intelligence agencies have become on private contractors. The Times article noted that the intelligence agencies have increased their use of contractors during the Bush administration’s tenure.

But the question remains: How many contractors do work for intelligence agencies?

We don’t know. The government won’t tell us, because the number of contractors is classified.

Apparently, knowing the number of contractors – not government employees, mind you – will somehow give the bad guys a leg up.

“It reveals how confused the government is about what is really sensitive and what is not,” said Steven Aftergood of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. “What would Osama bin Laden do with the fraction of intelligence workers who are contractors? Absolutely nothing.”

The Mystery of the Missing White House E-mails

To enable White House officials to conduct political business without getting into trouble for doing it with government equipment, the Republican National Committee (RNC) gave the officials RNC e-mail accounts several years ago. Those receiving the accounts included top White House advisor Karl Rove, according to news reports (Check out this Reuters report and this column in The Washington Post).

Trouble is, Rove apparently conducted some government business with his RNC account - a great way to keep that government business hidden.

Now, some of those official e-mails may erroneously have been deleted, the White House says. And some of Rove's e-mails may have been related to the controversial firing of U.S. prosecutors.

Cover up? Or just an honest mistake? Stay tuned. Well almost certainly hear more about this one.

Easter Recess... And Rotten Eggs

The Senate is out for Easter recess now.  Which means the White House might be planning to hide some rotten eggs — by giving out recess appointments that would give a lot of power to some unacceptable special interests.

Rotten Egg #1: Susan Dudley

One of them might be Susan Dudley.  You might remember Dudley: she spent her career arguing that if we truly valued protections like air bags or privacy rights, then corporations would already be giving them to us… so there’s no need for any regulation to protect us.

Bush nominated her to an office where she would have power to weaken and eliminate all those pesky regulations, like air bags and privacy rights, which Dudley thinks we don’t really need.

Your calls and letters to the Senate last year were successful:  the Susan Dudley nomination wasn’t even allowed to leave the committee.  And the Republican Senator who chaired that committee last year actually told the press that the president would be within his rights to send the nomination back in 2007… but it would just be a waste of time.

So did Bush learn his lesson?  Nope.  Bush is at it again in 2007 – nominating, once again, Susan Dudley to become the regulatory czar.  But even that wasn’t enough:  while the Senate is looking again at her nomination, Bush decided to put her in power through the backdoor, by making her a “senior advisor,” so that she can go ahead and do the job that the Senate decided last year she shouldn’t be allowed to do.

Remind the Senate that Dudley is unfit to have such enormous power to ruin your health and safety, and tell the White House not to use the Easter recess to give her a recess appointment.

Rotten Egg #2:  Michael Baroody

President Bush would be hard-pressed to find a more inappropriate nominee to head the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CSPC), the government agency charged with protecting consumers from dangerous products, than Michael Baroody.  Why?  Because Baroody has spent the past decade lobbying to undermine consumers’ rights.

As the head of advocacy efforts for the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), Baroody has spearheaded campaigns at both the federal and state levels to limit the ability of regulatory agencies like CPSC to protect us, and to bar consumers who have been injured from being able to go to court and demand justice.

NAM advocacy efforts include a wide-ranging strategy to influence elections. In conjunction with the Business Industry Political Action Committee (BIPAC) and other groups, NAM helps run the “Prosperity Project,” an effort to elect pro-business candidates.  2004 was a busy time for NAM and its “Prosperity Project” – which NAM claimed was a neutral voter education effort, although University of Minnesota political scientist Lawrence Jacobs thought otherwise:  “This is not nonpartisan, evenhanded campaign material,” he said, about literature distributed by Prosperity Project companies and associations.  “It’s material that’s subtly but clearly promoting one candidate at the expense of another.” While Baroody told the National Review that NAM did not endorse candidates, Baroody slammed 2004 Democratic nominees John Kerry and John Edwards as being “virtually in a league by themselves,” in terms of their credibility gap with manufacturers.

The White House has likely calculated that Baroody won’t pass the smell test in the Senate.  Tell the White House that a recess appointment of Baroody stinks.

The Political Scandals Just Keep On Coming

Even after the November elections when voters rebuked the GOP because of its scandal-ridden image and turned control of Congress over to the Democrats, the political scandals just keep on coming.

I attended the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings this morning on eight federal prosecutors who were fired en masse following the 2006 elections in December by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the Bush Administration.  The Administration initially gave no reason for the firings.  The story of political intrigue and corruption that my Public Citizen colleague Linda Andros wrote about on TomPaine.com last week continues to unfold.

The hearing noted that all but one received exemplary performance reviews. The common thread among many of these firings appears to be political repercussions for prosecuting Republicans for corruption, such as the infamous Duke Cunningham, or not prosecuting Democrats fast enough before the elections. Never mind that all but two of the prosecutors are Republicans; the other two are Independents.

Who is Killing the Presidential Public Funding System?

Suspect #1: Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) - He recently called for the abolishment of the presidential public funding system.  His defense is that presidential candidates are choosing not to opt-in and that the public doesn't want to pay for it. McConnell says fewer people are checking a box on the federal tax forms to give $3 to program.  Is it true that the public doesn't want to pay for this?  A poll from last summer showed that 74% percent of the public supports publicly funded elections.  They believe the cost of running for office is out of control and would rather it be paid for by the public than by special interests.  Also, many states and municipalities have passed public funding or “Clean Elections.”

Suspect #2: The Presidential Candidates - Current candidates have all decided to fund their campaigns from private sources.  Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) is asking her biggest supporters to fork over $1,000,000.  At this rate, the 2008 presidential candidates could be expected to raise more than $500,000,000.  With these exorbitant entrance fees for the presidential elections, it is no wonder the public funding system can’t keep up.  No one in 1974 ever expected this kind of largess.

State of Whose Union?

Tonight we’ll be listening closely to the President’s State of the Union address. This year we hope he levels with the American people. Unfortunately, as we’ve learned in previous State of the Union addresses, this president’s assertions are not always "reality-based."

As an example from his 2006 address, we were told that lawsuits were driving doctors out of practice - causing a shortage of ob-gyns in 1,500 counties. This was not true and a blatant attempt to urge the Congress to enact medical liability reform.

Today, Public Citizen released an analysis [pdf] of this claim that shows the real facts.

So, will we hear the truth from the President tonight?

Bush 'Pioneer' gets 18 years

Tom Noe, a prominent coin dealer and former Bush fundraiser was found guilty last week of money laundering, corrupt activity, forgery, tampering with records and theft. This morning he was sentenced to a stiff 18 years in prison. This comes on top of a 27-month sentence for violating federal campaign laws when donating to Bush's re-election campaign in 2004. He will also pay a $213,000 fine and $3 million for the cost of the prosecution.    

The Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (BWC) gave $50 million to Noe to invest in rare coins. It is reported that Noe stole between $2 million and $13 million to pay off business loans and buy a house in the Florida Keys. 

Thomas Osowik, the presiding judge has this to say: "You continued to spend the bureau's money at what I thought was a shockingly, alarmingly large rate, and done for one purpose: to present some type of a facade that you had a bottomless cup of wealth and luxury at your disposal, when in fact it was at the state's expense."

Noe may still end up in Florida; retiring at one if of its fine federal prisons.

This shows the corrupting effect of our current campaign finance system and the pressure to increase political influence in a high-stakes money game. A system for public funding of elections would mean that candidates would no longer need to rely on fundraising by crooks.

Bush Fundraiser Goes to Jail

The Toledo Blade reports that Thomas Noe was convicted of conspiring to violate federal campaign laws.  He was sentenced to 27 months in prison and will pay $136,200 in fines.  Noe achieved “Pioneer” status (raising over $100,000 for Bush) by giving cash to friends and associates, who in turn paid to attend a high-priced lunch.

Before sentencing, Noe said, “…I was pressured by Bush-Cheney campaign officials to become a pioneer for George Bush” and “I knew it was wrong.”

The RNC said it would return the money if authorities ordered it to do so.

The Bush/Cheney "Ethical Sleaze" Tour

The late, great Washington Post columnist Mary McGrory once wrote that the Bush administration has a habit of "using shamelessness as a political weapon."

While she wrote that during earlier, more carefree days for the president, it continues to characterize an administration that has rarely seen an ethical problem worth its concern, let alone its condemnation. Oh, and what the heck - why not just go ahead and actually raise a little money in the midst of all those ethical improprieties?

That is, incredibly enough, exactly what Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are doing during the next several days, as the president travels first to Kentucky, home of recently indicted Republican Gov. Ernie Fletcher, to do a little fund raising. Not to be outdone, the vice president will travel next week to California where he will do fund-raisers for Republican Reps. John Doolittle and Richard Pombo, both of whom face unexpectedly tough races, largely due to ethics scandals swirling around them. (Doolittle in particular has numerous close ties to Jack Abramoff, but both gentlemen are inductees in our Hall of Shame.) For good measure, Cheney will also do a fund-raiser for Brian Bilbray, the Republican candidate to replace imprisoned and disgraced former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

Any chance Bush and Cheney will focus on the need to clean up corruption during their fund-raising pitches? Probably about as much as there is of Cheney giving the names of those oil company executives he met with to formulate energy policy, or of Bush admitting that yes, actually, he does know Mr. Abramoff rather well.

There actions could, however, unintentionally assist those of us who are fighting corruption. Just by following their fund-raising tours for the rest of this election year, it could be easy to tell who has the biggest ethics problems in Congress...

-Gordon Clark

Abramoff-White House meetings to be revealed - and corruption news goes international

We at Clean Up Washington can barely contain ourselves. As reported in today's top story, below, the Secret Service will release records of when convicted superlobbyist Jack Abramoff's visited the White House - and with whom he visited. This should be an interesting test for new White House spokesperson Tony Snow....

And if you thought the effort to control lobbyists in the U.S. Congress is running into some rough sledding, just take a look across the pond. The European Union, where lobbyists seem to be proliferating (many from the U.S., and many of them starting to adopt U.S.-style lobbyist practices), is also slowly backing away from the problem. In an interview about the EU's stance on the issue, Estonian Commissioner Siim Kallas explains that "to start legislation with compulsory registration [of lobbyists] would face enormous legal difficulties. We would not achieve anything until after the end of our mandate, that is quite sure." Currently there is no registry at all of lobbyists in the EU, and Kallas justified his proposal for a voluntary registration system on the grounds that the lobbying firms were preparing to challenge a mandatory registration system every step of the way.

Lastly, for a fairly thorough summary of the scandals and resulting lack of action here in the U.S., check out "U.S. Grapples with Corruption and Loses" in - of all places - the Tehran Times. (Yes, that Tehran.) They seem to have a pretty good bead on the situation after interviews with our own Legislative Representative Craig Holman, Public Citizen's lobbyist on ethics and campaign finance legislation, who concludes by noting "today Capitol Hill is being run by and for corporations. The motive here is profit and it has nothing to do with what is good for the country." My goodness - even repressive theocracies feel emboldened to rub our government's nose in our own corruption....

-Gordon Clark

GOP fears Bush's poll numbers, but still loves his money

The more things change...?

President Bush's approval rating has been mired in the mid-30's for some time now, and Republican members of Congress who previously clung to his side whenever they could are now starting to avoid him at all costs.

Well, maybe not at all costs. Because even though most GOP Representatives and Senators are now declining to join the President when he visits their state to make policy speeches - who would want to spend the following several days defending the war in Iraq or the sale of our ports to a Dubai-owned company? - they DO seem more than willing to have Bush (and the even more unpopular Cheney) come raise millions in campaign cash for them.

As the AP details, Bush is the most aggressive fundraiser-in-chief in U.S. history. Having raised $140 million for Congressional candidates in the 2002 and 2004 elections, he has already raised $88 million for his party's candidates at 26 events in 2005 and 2006. (And the VEEP ponied up by headlining 47 fundraisers in the same period that brought in $16.6 million.)

Amusingly, this "fear the policy, love the money" connundrum has the GOPers in more contortions than a game of Twister. New Jersey GOP senate candidate Tom Kean, Jr., for instance, managed to show up a fundraiser for his campaign hosted by Dick Cheney - 15 minutes after the Vice-President had left. (He claimed that he got caught in traffic. Did the dog also eat his speech notes?)

What isn't so clear is what policies these Republican candidates will promote if (re)elected. Is it too cyncial to expect, as the old adage says, that they will continue to dance with those that brought 'em...?

-Gordon Clark