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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sam Rasoul
Democratic Candidate
Virginia's 6th Congressional District

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Together, we can truly do better.

Diane Benson
Democrat for Congress, Alaska

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's where it turns political:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lawrence Lessig dedicated his cover story with Metroactive to addressing political corruption. There is a lot of new ideas in here so even if you've heard him speak on the issue, I hope you'll still give it a peek. Here's an excerpt:

The political scientist will insist that there is no good evidence that money affects results directly. Despite generations of empirical work trying to show a quid pro quo, nothing has been found. Yet even without changing votes, the dynamic can skew Congress' work in predictable ways. This dynamic changes government. The work of Congress gets diverted. The issues that get attention are different from what they otherwise would have been. Think about Bill Gates' claim—"fifty times the amount spent on researching malaria goes to finding a cure for baldness"—and shift the reference to government: In 15 words, you have a picture of Congress.

"But is this really it?" you might ask. "That the dependency of private funding simply shifts the focus of Congress? That's all? And if so, is this really the issue to worry about?"

This is where I got stuck for most of the time that I've thought about this question. No doubt there's a theoretical harm here. But what's its practical effect? Why should a reformer worry about this before she worries about health care? How could a reformer justify working here when there are issues like global warming that need a solution too? One response would be to quibble with the scientists. For not everyone believes the story is this sanguine. Many former members of Congress, for example, are quite convinced that money has a significant effect, certainly on the agenda, but also on the results.

Many believe that money at least buys access. As Sen. Paul Simon put it, when you're handed a stack of telephone messages at the end of the day, most of which are from people you've never heard of, and one from someone who has given you $1,000, "which call do you think you're going to make?"

A coalition of government transparency groups (which Change Congress is a part of) is asking the Senate to take a step into the modern era by requiring that all campaign finance reports be filed electronically. Currently, these reports are filed on paper requiring massive amounts of information to be digitized and further delaying valuable info from the public's view. The House of Representatives has been filing electronically for years. Whats the holdup, Senators?

S. 223 was originally introduced by Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold over a year and half ago. Since then it's been blocked, stalled, or shut down by opponents like John Ensign (R-NV).

The Sunlight Foundation has put together a simple web page allowing you to see which Senators are supporting the bill, which are opposed, and how many calls each Senate office has received.

You can take a look at the actual bill over at OpenCongress and follow the supporters and opponents (including industry and activist groups) on Maplight.org.

Passing this bill will shine light into the dark corners of governmental process, and it starts with a couple of phone calls you can make. This should be a no-brainer, but, honestly, how often have you watched your government get no-brainers completely wrong?

Wal-Mart is showing off its political savvy of late. Recent reports show that Wal-Mart's PAC, (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. PAC for Responsible Government) is on pace to fork over more money to House democrats than House Republicans for the first time ever. At the same time, they're pressuring employees to support John McCain in November warning that an Obama administration would be "bad for labor." (Note the irony: Wal-Mart organizing its labor not to vote for someone who will allow their labor to organize).

Mixed signals? Perhaps, but it's also a sign that America's biggest corporation has the ability to stay tight with whoever is in power. In the House of Representatives, the Democrats are poised to capture another significant majority, something Wal-Mart is betting on by funneling big checks to key Democrats. Let's call it a smart investment. Or, we could call it bribery. This from the Rothenberg Political Report:

Through June, Wal-Mart’s PAC had contributed to 86 House Democrats this cycle, amounting to just more than one-third of the Caucus. That’s more than the 77 House Democrats Wal-Mart supported in 2006 and the 62 that received PAC money in 2004.

Since 2004, Wal-Mart has given $27,500 to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.), $22,500 to House Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.), $12,000 to Chief Deputy Whip Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), and $20,500 to House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (N.Y.).

Earlier, the Wall Street Journal reported that Wal-Mart managers and executives were warning their employees that an Obama victory in 2008 would be a threat to the corporation because it would invite pressure to unionize.

The Wal-Mart human-resources managers who run the meetings don't specifically tell attendees how to vote in November's election, but make it clear that voting for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama would be tantamount to inviting unions in, according to Wal-Mart employees who attended gatherings in Maryland, Missouri and other states.

"The meeting leader said, 'I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won't have a vote on whether you want a union,'" said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. "I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote," she said.

Wal-Mart is playing it smart. They understand the value of having a Republican president but also of having a Congress who will defend their interests (but not those of their workers').

At the heart of this strategy is the power of incumbency.

In a few cases, it is clear that Wal-Mart values incumbency rather than a political party. For example, in Texas’ 23rd district, Wal-Mart gave then-Rep. Henry Bonilla (R) contributions in 2004 ($7,500) and 2006 ($15,000), but this cycle gave $10,000 to the man who defeated him, Democratic Rep. Ciro Rodriguez.

In Florida’s 22nd district, then-Rep. Clay Shaw (R) received Wal-Mart PAC money in 2004 ($5,000) and 2006 ($10,000), but the company gave $10,000 this cycle to Rep. Ron Klein (D), who defeated Wal-Mart’s candidate in 2006. Similar giving patterns can be seen in Pennsylvania’s 4th district, Indiana’s 2nd, Georgia’s 12th, North Carolina’s 11th and Indiana’s 9th.

In New York’s 24th district, Wal-Mart’s PAC contributed $5,000 for then-Rep. Sherwood Boehlert’s 2004 re-election and $10,000 to Ray Meier, the Republican who ran unsuccessfully to replace him in 2006. But this cycle, Wal-Mart has maxed out ($10,000) to Rep. Michael Arcuri (D), whom it once opposed.

The message Wal-Mart is sending with its political contributions is not a regard for "responsible government" (or whatever harmless sounding PAC title they choose) but rather, a desire to buy power from it.

Many have called for the Democratic beneficiaries to give back the Wal-Mart loot, but no action has since been seen from recipients like Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (M.d), Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.), and House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (N.Y.).

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) is under the microscope after his friend and ally Senator Ted Stevens was handed a federal indictment on corruption charges. What's interesting is who is holding the microscope.

The Club for Growth, a conservative PAC known for their hard-hitting commercials, has released a new one hammering Young for his $10 million earmark for a road in Fort Myers, Florida.



Add Young to the list of Alaskan politicians under the microscope (along with Senator Stevens and Governor Sarah Palin).

Just arrived last night to an already bustling Democratic Convention in Denver. The night included setting up my air mattress, wolfing down a veggie sub from Jimmy John's, being delayed by Code Pink protests, and watching Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, Robert F.Kennedy Jr. and Colorado Governor Bill Ritter introduce Dave Matthews for a benefit concert organized by global warming specialist Laurie David.

The Big Tent next to the Pepsi Center serves as the hub of anything online related. Flat screen TVs, couches, tables full of bloggers, press, and journalists scatter the bottom level. The second level is designated for panel discussions with a small stage and a few hundred chairs.

The Sunlight Foundation's Gabriela Schneider and Nancy Watzman tried to get into several parties last night but were denied, and they weren't the only ones. Also, Markos over on DailyKos has a great post about his recent invite to a "reactionary corporate PAC money" party. Stay tuned....