Change Congress

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.