The ethics trial of recently reelected Rep. Charlie Rangel begins this morning. Rep. Rangel will represent himself. The Sunlight Foundation has live coverage of the trial.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee, has paid some $30,000 since 2004 for the endorsement of embattled Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) in the context of a scheme that critics charge is unethical and amounts to Waters using her political station to benefit her family members.

According to the Washington Times, Waters “has turned political endorsements into a family business, using federal election laws to charge California candidates and political causes to include their names as her personal picks on a sample ballot, or ‘slate mailer,’ she sends to as many as 200,000 South Central Los Angeles voters.”

The slate mailer business, it turns out, is run by Waters’ daughter, Karen, via her public relations firm.  Records show that Karen Waters’ firm has been paid more than $350,000 since 2004, and has billed a further $82,000 since California’s June primary, for its services in this regard.

It is a scheme that has been criticized by good governance groups including the Sunlight Foundation and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

(more…)

Last week, we reported on the undisclosed funding and conflicts of interest behind the pro-regulatory “research” being peddled by The Sunlight Foundation and picked up by the New York Times.  Following that Big Government report, Sunlight scurried to put up a post mentioning that pro-net neutrality companies also hire government officials and spend money on lobbying and disclosing that “Google senior manager Kim Scott sits on the Advisory Board of the Sunlight Foundation.”

The most interesting aspect of this story is not really about Internet regulation, though.

The real issue is how the Sunlight Foundation, which says it exists to push “transparency in government,” actually has a stunningly hypocritical stance with its own funding and self-interest.

All you have to do is to look at its Board of Directors and major donors (often one and the same).  Start with Craig Newmark, founder of the eponymous Craig’s List. His foundations gave Sunlight $10,000 in 2009 (Craig Newmark Philanthropic Fund) and $50,000 in 2010 (Craigslist Charitable Fund).  Craig Newmark sits on the Board of the Sunlight Foundation, and has been one of the leaders in lobbying for heightened government regulations on broadband.

Next, you have Google, which has joined Newmark in financing pro-Net neutrality lobbying for years and which has a senior executive on Sunlight’s Advisory Board.  It wasn’t until our post that the Sunlight Foundation thought it relevant to mention that their Advisory Board and major donors contain people with a direct financial interest in regulation for which Sunlight is providing helpful “transparency research”.  The New York Times didn’t mention that, either.

Apparently transparency is only for those on the other side of the political aisle.

(more…)

The Left is far more organized than you might imagine, but a little investigation can turn up some fascinating examples of how they coordinate with front groups and the media to advance their policies.  Consider this New York Times editorial. The FCC is attempting to play musical chairs with regulatory authority until they find one that will let them regulate the Internet. A lot of Congressional Republicans and Democrats–in fact, a majority of them–have questioned that move.

On Tuesday, the Sunlight Foundation, which promotes itself as an organization working “to make government transparent and accountable”, released a strange bit of “research” showing that a few of the pro-net neutrality organizations didn’t spend as much money on lobbying the federal government as the companies who were being threatened with regulation.  They didn’t even attempt to figure out whether the money was being spent on net neutrality, or how much was spent by relevant organizations that weren’t at one particular meeting.  They didn’t mention, or calculate the value of, all the “behind closed door” lobbying that is being done by activist front-groups like Free Press.

Of course, the New York Times just regurgitated their sloppy advocacy. Sunlight used numbers! With decimals! So it must be facts!

But there is something else that the New York Times did not bother to check before writing this editorial about the influence of money in politics.

Who funds the Sunlight Foundation?

It turns out, the Sunlight Foundation’s “research” is funded by organizations who just happen to have a direct interest in net neutrality regulations.

Look at record:

Google, which strongly favors government “neutrality” regulation, has given Sunlight nearly $100,000 during the past two years. And Google executive Kim Scott sits on Sunlight’s board of directors.

But when Big Government exposed ethics violations by Deputy Chief Technology Officer Andrew McLaughlin, who came to the White House from Google and yet continued private email coordination with them about policies effecting the company – possibly violating federal archiving rules – did the Sunlight Foundation investigate?  Or even call for more transparency from the White House to prevent such abuses?

Sunlight did not say a word.

(more…)

As we reported a few weeks ago, White House Deputy CTO Andrew McLaughlin became ensnared in the Google Buzz privacy controversy when his Gmail contacts were made publicly available through his Buzz profile, which included 28 senior Google lobbyists and lawyers.

The controversy has prompted a slew of letters and FOIA requests to the White House and Department of Justice from watchdog groups.  Last week, Congressman Darrell Issa sent a letter to McLaughlin asking whether the deputy CTO may have been using Gmail to communicate with his former employer, thus circumventing the laws associated with openness and transparency.  Issa gave McLaughlin a deadline of this week to answer a series of questions on what the Deputy CTO is doing to comply with official recordkeeping rules.

Now we’ve learned that another ex-Googler working in the Administration, Katie Jacobs Stanton, has been snagged by Google’s lax privacy settings as well. Like McLaughlin, Stanton — the New Media Director at the State Department — had 17 Google employees in her Gmail account exposed in the Buzz privacy flap, as the screenshots below indicate:

Katie Jacobs Stanton was President Obama’s appointee to the newly created position of Director of Citizen Participation in March of 2009 and recently moved to the State Department as the New Media Director.  Her previous responsibilities at Google included Google Moderator, Google Finance and Google’s Open Social initiative.

(more…)

Whoever said, “What you don’t know can’t hurt you,” never went to Congress.

Sometime this year, perhaps very soon, both chambers in Congress likely will be asked to vote on a monumental healthcare bill — monumental in its scope, its cost, and the actual number of pages in the legislation.

And while many important questions about the final draft of the bill remain, here’s one that most Americans are shocked we even have to ask: “Will members of Congress be given enough time to read and understand the bill before casting a vote?”

The answer, based on prior behavior, is “probably not.”

Earlier this year, members, the public, and press were given 12 hours to review the 1,073-page long stimulus bill that cost future generations of Americans (since we’re borrowing just about everything at this point) $787 billion. Not a single member I talked to read it before the vote. I doubt Evelyn Wood could have even pulled it off.

The cap and trade bill, which would cost $846 billion and weighs in at 1,428 pages, was available for 16.5 hours before the House vote.

But this isn’t a partisan problem: under Republican rule in 2003, for example, the 852-page Medicare Part D bill was available for 29 hours before a vote was called on the $395 billion legislation.

(more…)