The Senate Judiciary committee held a hearing tilted, "We the People? Corporate Spending in American Elections after Citizens United." During the hearing opponents of the ruling argued that the case exemplified that the Roberts Court has abandoned judicial restraint. Conversely, witness Bradley Smith, described the responses to the Citizens United decision as "hysteria." Smith also caused hysteria during the hearing when he referenced Vermont legislators as "freaking out" about the decision. This incited a heated exchange between Smith and Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT). Leahy interrupted Smith, disagreeing with the characterization of Vermont legislators.

Substantially, the panelists somewhat agreed that it will be very difficult to pass any major legislative changes. Any new campaign finance law is likely to face a legal challenge.

According to BNA Money and Politics ($$), Democratic senators maintained that the decision "represents a major boost to corporate influence in American politics, which is deeply unpopular with their constituents."

In addition, the House Financial Services subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises held a hearing which primarily focused on the issue of whether corporations should have to report their expenditures to shareholders. A member of the committee, Rep. Mike Capuano (D-MA), has introduced the Shareholder Protection Act of 2010, (H.R. 4790) requiring shareholder approval of corporate expenditures and boards of directors would have to vote on political spending over $50,000.

Again, any legislation is sure to face an uphill battle and possible future litigation. The expected measure from Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) after the release last month of a summary of their proposals has yet to be introduced. CQ ($$) reports that the lawmakers are "sorting through the concerns of labor unions, nonprofit organizations and lawmakers as they try to write legislative language and line up cosponsors from both parties."

The Chronicle of Philanthropy ($$) details the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships' new report offering suggestions for the government in its work with charities. The panel provided a 164-page document which included recommendations to ensure that religious charities use government money only for secular activities.

The panel was split on whether houses of worship should be required to set up separate organizations to receive federal money. The report also suggests the federal government "clarify how the constitutional separation of church and state applies to charities that receive government grants and contracts." Charities are not allowed to use direct government money for "inherently religious activities" but, the council proposed that wording be changed to "explicitly" religious activities.

One of the report's recommendations dealt with the proposed Partner Vetting System (PVS), a program that OMB Watch has opposed. PVS would require grant applicants to submit detailed personal information on "key individuals" to be shared with intelligence agencies and screened against terrorist watch lists. The panel rightfully advises that the government work with nonprofits to create an alternative to PVS. "PVS as currently designed would significantly harm partnerships with local communities and compromises the safety of U.S. PVO [private voluntary organizations] personnel."

In a report released yesterday, Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) critically examined the tax policies proposed recently in Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) budget alternative, titled conventionally, "A Roadmap for America's Future." Claims of the proposal "balancing the budget" and "reforming entitlements" have already been thoroughly debunked, but CTJ has contributed a valuable analysis of the young Republican's tax policies, which will actually cost the government "$2 trillion over a decade even while requiring 90 percent of taxpayers to pay more" than they already do in taxes.

How does Ryan, the ranking member on the House Budget Committee, accomplish this stunning feat? Steve Wamhoff, the report's author, argues that Ryan's proposal reduces federal receipts and outlays to recklessly low levels, while pumping money into the pockets' of the nation's wealthiest citizens. Ryan, according to Wamhoff, structures this disaster of a budget proposal around four main tax policies: extension of all Bush Tax Cuts; introduction of a "simplified" tax as an alternative to the personal income tax; elimination of the estate tax; and replacement of the corporate tax with a value-added tax (VAT).

I know we're just beginning to see signs of an economic recovery, but that doesn't mean that it's time to start providing tax relief to those making over $250,000 a year. Extension of the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthiest Americans makes little sense when you examine the cost to government in the form of lost revenue and the unsustainability of claims that rich people use most of their money to create jobs. In light of Ryan's other regressive tax policies in the proposal, though, I suppose we should be grateful that he just didn't reverse President Obama's plan and only extend the Bush Tax Cuts for those making over $250,000.

The effects of Ryan's "simplified" income tax competing with the traditional income tax make the proposal, according to Wamhoff, anything but simple. The plan reduces taxes for all but the poorest Americans and takes more money from you the wealthier you are, but the benefits of the system are extremely regressive compared to the current income tax structure. Moreover, the competition of the "simplified" tax would actually complicate matters as people tried to shift from one system to the other depending on which one required the least amount of tax liability.

I have exhaustively chronicled how elimination of the estate tax would benefit only the wealthiest of Americans and drastically hurt the government's bottom line, all while discarding one of the only checks on the accumulation of wealth – and, therefore, power – in this country. Replacement of the corporate tax with a consumption or VAT for business would create a regressive tax that would overwhelmingly hurt the poor and middle class, as businesses would be able to shift what was once a tax on them onto consumers.

Critics have been beating up on Rep. Ryan's budget proposal since he released it back in February, but, as Matt Yglesias noted earlier today, it's important to consider that in the not-too-distant future, Ryan could be writing budgets for a GOP majority, "presumably animated by the same moral principles that led him to this idea." That is a scary thing.

Image by Flickr user Juan Nosé used under a Creative Commons license.

Today, March 9, is the one-year anniversary of President Obama’s scientific integrity memo which instructed his staff to produce within 120 days recommendations for ensuring independence of federal scientists and limiting political interference in their work. 365 days later, we’re still waiting.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is critical of the delay. Francesca Grifo, director of UCS’s scientific integrity program, had this to say:

While the new administration has been generally supportive of scientific integrity values, it's moving too slowly to establish badly needed reforms. The current system still discourages scientists from communicating about their research results, for example. It still keeps the public in the dark about the scientific basis for policy decisions, and it still rewards staffers who keep quiet about political interference in science. 

The criteria Obama laid out in his March 9, 2009, memo are admirable: hiring and keeping qualified scientists; defining new policies to ensure integrity; using “well-established scientific processes” like peer review; disclosing scientific findings; ensuring that scientific integrity principles are being adhered to; and adopting additional policies like whistleblower protections.

But by failing to follow up with a concrete set of reforms, Obama and John Holdren – the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy who was tasked with developing recommendations – are sending a terrible message to those who believe scientific integrity ought to be a priority for this administration.

Interference in science reached new heights under President George W. Bush; but just because Bush is gone does not mean the problems go away too. As OMB Watch discusses in the latest issue of our e-newsletter The Watcher, a new report from the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP) proves that much work remains. SKAPP interviewed federal scientists during both the Bush and Obama administrations, and found that although there were a few bright spots in scientists' views of the changes that had occurred, a majority felt similar frustrations.

Couple this delay with the now year-plus delay on Obama’s effort to improve the regulatory process by writing a new executive order, and my outlook on the administration’s commitment to government reform is dimming.

Photo by Flickr user davidfntau. Used under a Creative Commons license.