The LA Times reports on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's growing grassroots initiative, Friends of the U.S. Chamber, which "has begun to rival those of the major political parties, funded by record-setting amounts of money raised from corporations and wealthy individuals."

"The chamber has signed up some 6 million individuals who are not chamber members and has begun asking them to help with lobbying and, soon, with get-out-the-vote efforts in upcoming congressional campaigns."

According to the article, the group's successful fundraising can be attributed to the administration's legislative initiatives and the recent Supreme Court ruling that corporations may now directly advocate for the election of candidates for federal office. "Industries that are the most directly affected by Washington policies and regulations -- pharmaceuticals, for example -- have always spent lavishly on lobbying and politics. But many others have held back, deterred by concern over violating the complex laws on campaign spending and by a general sense that putting money into politics might open companies to criticism."

As predicted, corporations will increasingly contribute money to the chamber, which then produce ads targeting candidates without disclosing the identity of the donors. Inevitably, the article suggests this system "suggests a rocky road for legislation to require more transparency."

The American Constitution Society (ACS) hosted an event to discuss the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Five panelists assessed the prospects for congressional legislation. Not surprisingly, their opinions diverged on the ruling's long-term impact. There are numerous practical and constitutional issues involved in passing any of the bills introduced and it is doubtful whether or not legislators would even be able to agree on any of the proposals.

According to BNA Money and Politics ($$), Jan Baran, an attorney who represents the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said that "legislative proposals now being discussed come from congressional leaders who are clear in their intent to simply limit the scope of campaign spending that the Supreme Court has now said is constitutionally protected." James Portnoy, an attorney for Kraft Foods, said that he had "great skepticism" that any campaign finance reform legislation would be passed.

Meanwhile, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has introduced a constitutional amendment to reverse the ruling, with Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) joining as a cosponsor. This is the third proposed constitutional amendment in response to Citizens United. According to Dodd's press release, the amendment "would authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money for federal political campaigns, including independent expenditures, and allow states to regulate such spending at their level." Any constitutional amendment is a long shot, requiring a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate followed by ratification of three-fourths of the states.

On the state level, the National Conference of State Legislatures details that there are at least 23 states that currently prohibit or restrict corporate and union spending on candidate elections. Many states will now move forward to change these laws, and if not, there will likely be legal challenges. For example, in Minnesota it is illegal for corporations to try to influence elections by funding campaigns to defeat or endorse candidates. The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce is suing to make Minnesota's laws in sync with the Court decision.

USA Today reports that states nationwide "are rushing to rewrite campaign-finance laws." Bills offered in Iowa and Maryland are moving forward to require shareholder approval of political spending and to force public disclosure of corporate spending in state elections.

For more information on legislation in response to Citizens United, read this article from the latest Watcher.

Global Integrity, an international nonprofit organization that tracks global corruption trends, released the Global Integrity Index: 2009. The report analyzed 35 countries' ability to counter corruption, and the tools available to citizens to hold the government accountable.

"Rather than examine the 'cancer' of corruption, the Index investigates the 'medicine' being used against it — in the form of government accountability, transparency, and citizen oversight." Overall, the U.S. scored 85 out of 100, and was the second least corrupt country in the study.

According to the findings, "The Obama administration's early anti-corruption efforts focused significantly on tighter restrictions around lobbying. While certainly not harmful, there are few data to suggest that increasing the transparency around lobbying activities at the federal level is the solution to corruption challenges in the United States. Rather than lobbying, Global Integrity data point to the corrupting influence of massive amounts of money in the federal elections process as one of the core drivers of corruption in the American system."

Further, the Citizens United decision, "will likely pour fuel on the fire of political corruption in the U.S. While free speech concerns loomed large in the court's decision to overturn longstanding campaign finance controls, the practical reality is that by allowing significant new inflows of private money into the U.S. political process, the court's decision may simply overwhelm an already dysfunctional Federal Elections Commission and undermine prospects for more accountable governance."

Nevertheless, the administration earned high marks for urging federal agencies to disclose information under Freedom of Information Act requests and for the Open Government Initiative. Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, in a peer review section of the document stated "it will take time for Obama to overcome a longtime pattern of secrecy that has been imbedded in the federal bureaucracy. 'The culture in government is that you typically don't give out information that you don't have to.'"

According to the report, "significant progress has not been achieved in curbing corruption at the national level in the U.S." For more information on the report and how the study was conducted, click here.

Over 150 national, state and local groups, including OMB Watch signed on to a letter supporting passage of the Civil Access to Justice Act (S.718 / H.R. 3764). The legislation was introduced last year to reauthorize the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) and expand access to civil legal aid.

The letter was sent to every Member of Congress and hopefully such clear support will help motivate lawmakers to prioritize the measure and move it quickly through committee. The number of co-sponsors continues to increase with twenty in the Senate and twenty-three in the House.

The most problematic restrictions on LSC grantees remain those that prevent the use of non-federal funds to advocate on behalf of the neediest of our communities. The Civil Access to Justice Act would expand access to justice to low-income populations by lifting those restrictions and helping to ensure that federally funded legal services providers are able to assist their clients in the most effective way possible.

The letter states; "Severely underfunded, LSC reports that more than half of all eligible clients who seek legal help from LSC-funded programs are turned away due to insufficient resources. Additionally, LSC-funded programs’ ability to help their clients is hampered by outdated restrictions, imposed in the mid-1990s."