A graphical review of Obama's transparency pledges

PolitiFact is doing some great work fact-checking politicians, pundits, prognosticators and the other individuals that inhabit the Federal District. The Obameter, which tracks how successful Obama is in enacting the 500+ campaign pledges he made as a candidate, is one of my favorite features of the website.

The President's track record on his 35 transparency-related pledges is unimpressive: 21 have had no progress at all, seven are in the works, three were passed but in a compromised form, two were kept and two were broken.

Here is a graph to help you visualize:



For comparison, here is a graphical representation of Obama's 480 non-transparency pledges. 283 have had no progress, 120 are "In the Works,"14 are stalled, five have been broken, 11 pledges were kept but compromised and 47 have been kept.



The data clearly shows that President Obama has done a better job enacting non-transparency campaign pledges than transparency ones. He has kept more non-transparency pledges (9.79%) than transparency pledges (5.71%). He has compromised more on transparency pledges (8.57%) than non-transparency pledges (2.29%). Most disheartening, he has broken transparency pledges 5.5 times as often as non-transparency pledges (5.71% of transparency pledges are broken vs. 1.04% of regular pledges).

Nine months past inauguration the excuses have run out. Obama's people are in place and they have established their routines. With 60 percent of his transparency pledges unfulfilled, Obama has shown his disdain for transparency.

“Congress will protect its own, no matter what”

Taking office in 2006, Congressional Democrats promised to stop the "culture of corruption" that had permeated Congress. How has it been working out for them?

Not well:

With high-profile investigations under way against Democrats and Republicans, Congress is facing a series of difficult tests of the toughened ethics system that it put in place to weed out corruption and malfeasance among its members…

Since then, however, no member of Congress has been censured, the toughest punishment short of expulsion, despite a number of recent scandals involving sexual impropriety, financial dealings and conflicts of interest. The record illustrates how Congress has struggled to police itself after years in which its ethics committees were often derided as ineffectual. (Emphasis added)

Despite the lofty rhetoric, John Ensign, Charlie Rangel, David Vitter, Chris Dodd, and Maxine Waters are all facing questions regarding potential corruption or impropriety.

No wonder Congressional approval ratings are in the 20s.

Recovery.gov still lacking, critics claim

Watchdog groups from across the country say that Recovery.gov, even with recent improvements, is still falling short:

Watchdog organizations say it’s still hard to find data on a Web site the Obama administration developed to track spending from Congress’ $787 billion stimulus package, even after a Maryland company was hired for $18 million to improve it…

But the data are riddled with omissions and inaccuracies, said Craig Jennings, a senior fiscal analyst with OMB Watch, a nonprofit watchdog organization in Washington…

The problem is many people have been "completely bewildered" in trying to find data on Recovery.gov, Jennings said…

"Part of transparency is simplicity," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonprofit watchdog organization in Washington. "Just putting information out isn’t transparency."

Earl Devaney, the man in charge of Recovery.gov, said the site is a work in progress and that it will improve as more stimulus money is spent on the site.

Let's hope the site cleans up its act ASAP, especially with data from $200 billion in loans and grants becomes available on October 30th.

Although with the government's track record, I wouldn't hold my breath.

The Case Against Transparency?

Is the modern transparency movement doing more harm than good? That's what lawyer and political activist Lawrence Lessig argues in his new piece, Against Transparency.

How could anyone be against transparency? Its virtues and its utilities seem so crushingly obvious. But I have increasingly come to worry that there is an error at the core of this unquestioned goodness. We are not thinking critically enough about where and when transparency works, and where and when it may lead to confusion, or to worse. And I fear that the inevitable success of this movement--if pursued alone, without any sensitivity to the full complexity of the idea of perfect openness--will inspire not reform, but disgust. The "naked transparency movement," as I will call it here, is not going to inspire change. It will simply push any faith in our political system over the cliff.

The essay is long but very readable. In it, Lessig attempts to divide transparency into two categories: "naked transparency" and "targeted transparency."

To Lessig, naked transparency is simply a "data dump" that tells you everything but isn't useful. To use a car analogy, naked transparency is reporting how much the car weighs, where it was built, the miles-per-gallon, the average salary of the worker building it, and the manufacturers suggested retail price. This type of transparency gives you a lot of information but it doesn't inform you of anything. If you simply wanted to know what matters (e.g. is the car a good buy?), you're no better off than you were before.

Targeted transparency, on the other hand, does not seek to simply "get the data out there." Rather, targeted transparency "simplifies the data and presents it in a way that conveys meaningful information." To continue with the car analogy, targeted transparency tells you if the car is a good buy and overall ranks it with other cars. The "downside" of targeted transparency is you don't get as much information (weight, MSRP, where built, worker salary) but you do get a more valuable piece of information regarding the car -- whether it is a good buy.

After all, if the goal is to tease real meaning from the data and present that to the people, where do you get this data? You get it from FEC reports, lobbyist connections, and roll call votes. The naked transparency movement provides you it all.

Lessig then argues that removing special interest money from politics would solve a lot of the problems with modern government. He suggests having publicly funded campaigns with $100 per citizen limits per cycle. He ignores the fact that moneyed and powerful interests have always found a way to get around campaign finance laws -- which is why full disclosure is so important.

And more so, his plan violates the Constitutional rights of every citizen. The Supreme Court has routinely ruled that donating money to candidates is a First Amendment right. Additionally it's not the role of government to dole out tax dollars to elected officials. No one should have to support a politician -- liberal or conservative -- unless they choose to.

In short, there may be flaws in the naked transparency movement and government in general but Lessig's alternatives would be a step back for transparency.

Taxpayers have the right to know how the government is spending their money and who is spending money trying to influence elected officials. The American people have the right and the ability to handle this information and all its implications.

Nevada PACs can keep voters in the dark

What do you get when you mix a state with terrible campaign finance disclosure laws and PACs ran by ambitious politicians?

A mess:

Since 2000, Mayor Oscar Goodman has formed two political action committees with the stated goal of revitalizing downtown Las Vegas.

In 2005, then-North Las Vegas Mayor Mike Montandon formed his NLVPAC to “promote good leadership to benefit North Las Vegas.”

It’s difficult to know whether these PACs have achieved their aims. Nevada law allows political action committees to gather donations and — with the exception of donations to political candidates — spend that money without any public disclosure or limit.

Critics say those laws, which are among the weakest in the nation, deprive voters of potentially important information about who is giving money to and potentially currying the favor of elected officials.

As Kim Alexander of the Campaign Disclosure Project notes, PACs are often used by donors who want to "get around contribution limits." (Former-Mayor Mike Montandon has voluntarily disclosed the donors to his PAC.)

Just how lax are Nevada's campaign finance disclosure laws?

In 2008 Nevada ranked 45th among the states in public disclosure efforts, according to the Campaign Disclosure Project, a joint effort from the UCLA School of Law, the Center for Governmental Studies, and the California Voter Foundation. Nevada was one of 10 states last year that received an “F” from the group based on the adequacy of its campaign disclosure laws, thoroughness of its electronic filing program and accessibility of disclosures, including online resources. (Emphasis added)

PACs aren't the problem. The problem is keeping the activities of PACs secret. This allows donors to curry favor with a politician without his/her constituents knowing about it.

More strigent reporting laws would help the public know who is trying to buy influence and with whom.