It is no secret that House leaders are planning a major ethics reform bill, but the package will be brought to the House floor piecemeal. This will ensure that each important proposal, such as banning gifts from lobbyists, is debated on and receives its own vote. This should also bring about more media attention and hopefully a positive glimpse into how Democrats will act as the majority party.

The idea is to give each provision what Emanuel [Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.)] called its "Warhol time" -- 15 minutes of fame -- while forcing Republicans to take a stand on the components before a final vote on the ethics package. Because House rules changes are, by tradition, party-line votes, breaking the package into its components would also allow Republicans to support individual amendments, even though they probably would vote against the package in the end.

The Washington Post story can be read here.

Posted by Amanda Adams, 05:23:58 PM



Continued Documentation of Antiwar Groups

OMB Watch has reported on the Threat and Local Observation Notice (TALON) database before and now the New York Times is revealing that the database continues to hold information on peaceful, antiwar groups, such as simple antiwar planning meetings. TALON is used by the Defense Department to prevent attacks against the military. The head of the office that runs the database, Daniel J. Baur, commented that this information was never intended to be collected and,

"those operating the database had misinterpreted their mandate and that what was intended as an antiterrorist database became, in some respects, a catch-all for leads on possible disruptions and threats against military installations in the United States, including protests against the military presence in Iraq."

Yet new documents from the Pentagon released by the ACLU suggest that the collection of antiwar groups continues. The ACLU is asking that Congress investigate the surveillance of political and religious groups.

So far Congress has failed to investigate how the Pentagon collected the information on innocent Americans, and which other agencies received these reports. In addition, Congress has yet to act on the hundreds of FBI documents previously obtained by the ACLU that show widespread surveillance by Joint Terrorism Task Forces of peace activists, religious groups, environmental groups and animal rights activists.

It is no secret that during this past election there was wide spread use of "robo calls". Voters were bombarded throughout the country with repetitive, deceptive calls and now legislators want to act on these misleading campaign methods. The incoming majority leader Harry Reid and other Democratic leaders have serious concerns about these calls and other unethical campaign practices utilized before the election. Rep. John Conyers has called for federal officials to investigate complaints about the calls, possibly resulting in hearings before the House Judiciary Committee. Most notably, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has introduced S.1975, that would implement harsh penalties for giving voters false information to keep them from the polls.

From Obama's press release:

The legislation, the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2006, would make it illegal for anyone to knowingly attempt to prevent others from exercising his or her right to vote by providing deceptive information and would require the Attorney General to fully investigate these allegations. The legislation would also require the Attorney General, in conjunction with the Election Assistance Commission, to provide accurate election information when allegations of deceptive practices are confirmed.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) charged that in 2004 the nonprofit environmental group Sierra Club, a 501(c)(4), used funds from its corporate treasury to pay for a pamphlet "expressly advocating" the defeat of federal candidates. A specific guide was considered titled, "Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide," that used check marks to compare the environmental records of Bush and Kerry and the U.S. Senate candidates. It was found that the pamphlet “expressly advocated” Kerry and Castor’s election and Bush and Martinez’s defeat. This is the first major case to consider the express advocacy test after the Supreme Court case McConnell v. FEC.

As it says in the FEC press release, "the bar on using corporate treasury funds to pay for independent expenditures applies not only to communications containing so-called 'magic words,' such as 'vote for' or 'vote against,' but also to a broader set of communications that are 'unmistakable, unambiguous, and suggestive of only one meaning,' and can 'only be interpreted by a reasonable person as containing advocacy of the defeat of one or more candidates."

However, if the FEC sees express advocacy in this case, the numerous voter guides issued by issue oriented organizations during this past election may also be scrutinized as most do look at the candidates from their issue of concern, making them "unambiguous and suggestive of only one meaning." Now there seems to be very little guidance left for future elections, and further confusion between IRS and FEC rules. This case with the Sierra Club shows the likelihood of increased regulation of federal election activity. As suggested in Congressional Quarterly (subscription required), will this be the end of voter guides? The author suggests that churches might be the most affected. As Bob Bauer comments at the end of his blog on the topic; "Thus is born the new semiotics of campaign finance regulation. Such is what it means for advocacy to be “express." Also see this blog post on the issue from the Center for Competitive Politics.

Posted by Amanda Adams, 02:25:09 PM

Wednesday, November 15, 2006