In the meantime, a liberal advocacy group isn’t waiting on Congress and the president. OMB Watch expects to have its own Federal Contracts and Grants Database up on its Web site later this year, thanks to a grant by the Sunlight Foundation. OMB Watch is doing the hard and expensive work of linking the U.S. Census Bureau’s Federal Assistance Awards Data System and the General Services Administration’s Federal Procurement Data System. When it’s completed, the OMB Watch database will mark a major advance in the ability of the public to hold the federal government accountable for how it spends our tax dollars.

From the Hill:

Worried that “state legislatures get tarred with the same brush” being used to paint Congress as corrupt, Minnesota state Sen. Linda Higgins, a Democrat, co-wrote an ethics bill that would have prevented ex-members from lobbying former colleagues for two years and have imposed new financial disclosure requirements for lawmakers.

But reaction was mixed, particularly to the revolving-door effort. “A few colleagues have said, ‘Well, what do you think I’m going to do when I leave here?’” she said.

It’s tough for me to get too excited about the howls of protest from leading members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. I understand their concerns about protecting the independence of the legislative branch and possible abuse of executive powers. But it makes me wonder: Where were these voices of outrage and righteous indignation when we learned the executive branch was monitoring the telephone conversations of ordinary Americans? Where were they when the executive branch sought more power to search the homes and businesses of ordinary Americans without notification?

At least we know there was a legitimate warrant issued by a judge for the search of Congressman Jefferson’s office. Are my honorable colleagues suggesting that members of Congress or the institution itself should be treated differently in the eyes of the law than those who hold the most important position in America — that of ‘citizen?’ I hope not.

According to CQ, Sensenbrenner says Congress should be afforded the same legal protection against sweeping searches by the Justice Department as members of the news media, announcing that he is drafting legislation to bolster the constitutional rights he believes the FBI violated when it raided Jefferson's office earlier this month.

Additionally,

Four witnesses appearing before the House Judiciary Committee all agreed that the subsequent search of Jefferson's congressional office without prior notice or negotiations with congressional officials was a threat to the constitutional principle of separation of powers. The witnesses and the committee members cited Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution, which safeguards congressional "speech and debate" from investigation. Witnesses at the hearing included: law professors Charles Tiefer and Jonathan Turley, former Rep. Robert Walker (R-Pa.), and conservative legal scholar Bruce Fein. All of the witnesses said the DOJ raid on Jefferson's office violated the separation-of-powers doctrine.

Tiefer, a former legal adviser to Congress, emphasized that previous DOJ investigations were conducted effectively after prosecutors negotiated to get needed materials without resorting to a search warrant.

Walker, who is now a lobbyist with the firm Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates, told the committee that the Jefferson probe should be viewed in the context of continuing investigations of other lawmakers. He said DOJ "appears to be looking at campaign contributions" being used as possible bribes to obtain official favors--a type of investigation that Walker said was unprecedented and would be a source of continuing concern on Capitol Hill.

On April 18, the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) filed suit against officials of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), claiming that the VA's hospital chaplaincy program violates the Establishment Clause.

FFRF has brought two previous lawsuits against government programs that link religion and healthcare. This case, should it be determined in FFRF's favor, could impact the historic use of chaplancy in various other aspects of healthcare.

For more, see Professor Ira Lupu's analysis of the case.

Posted by Jennifer Lowe, 05:48:57 PM

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Wednesday, May 24, 2006