Transparency Bill Isn't Being 'Blocked'
By Bluey Posted in Congress | Featured Stories — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
There's much debate taking place over the fate of the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act, a bill the Sunlight Foundation claims has been blocked with a "secret hold." Following up on David All's post from yesterday, I accused bloggers of getting the story wrong. Apparently, I should have include mainstream journalists as well. (See coverage in the San Francisco Examiner, New York Times and The Hill.)
The problem with this story is that bloggers and reporters writing about it have failed to check the facts, and in the process have misconstrued Senate procedure. (For more, see Danny Glover's Beltway Blogroll post.) There's a clear difference between a "secret hold" and an objection to unanimous consent, which is what happened in the case of this bill. A secret hold is done in committee when a bill has been hotlined.
The biggest mistake being made is the assertion that the bill has been blocked. In fact, it has not been. Instead, an attempt to put the bill on the fast track to passage got shot down, meaning it'll have to wait for a vote as part of the regular order of business. "It is on the legislative calendar," Senate Republican spokesman Don Stewart told the Washington Post. "Senators are now reviewing the bill in anticipation of legislative action."
I'm not trying to pick a fight with my friends at Sunlight on this. I'm a strong supporter of the legislation, and while I'm not sure it needed to be rushed to passage, I do hope it comes up soon for a vote. If bloggers want to pressure Senate leadership, I'd encourage them to do so. But please, when you're writing about this bill, stick to the facts. It's not a secret hold.
UPDATE -- 1:32 p.m.: Danny Glover has changed his mind. And in the spirit of transparency (I'm being sarcastic), he deleted his original post, which I linked to above. Actually, Glover tells me it was "accidentally posted." He thought he was saving it offline, but it accidentally showed up.
UPDATE -- April 20, 10:05 p.m.: I just noticed that Danny Glover actually re-posted the post I criticized him for deleting. I applaud Danny for his commitment to transparency.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | Geez Louise. I Hate To Do This, But . . . — Comments (32) »
Transparency Bill Isn't Being 'Blocked' 2 Comments (0 topical, 2 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I am also a big fan of this bill, however where I get lost is with organizations that propose to be "Pro-transparency" but do not provide accurate follow through on the very measures they seek to "watch". "Holds" like these give watchdogs the fuel they need to spin government processes into conspiracies. Im not naive enough to believe that questionable procedural moves are made routinely, but I fail to see how such marketing can be considered "sunlight" when it declines to provide total transparency ABOUT transparency.
Perhaps we can all recall last year's joyride on the Transparency train. Several organizations jumped on the "Transparency" bandwagon, esp when it came to Coburn/Obama's illustrious "Google for gov't" bill that called for creating a searchable database of all federal funding. The internet ate it up and hopped on the very bandwagon they saught to expose in doing so. No one, not one organization or blogger associated with the "revolutionary" database that S. 2590 called for has provided follow up information on this database's feasibility or what OMB is doing with the guidance supplied by Coburn/Obama's bill. There was also a "hold" put on this legislation too, which set the internet aflutter with "active" citizens calling around to "out" the holder. The whole thing was considered this huge "victory" for the b-sphere and reform oriented grassroots politics.
In the end, Sen. Stevens and Byrd were "outed" which served up a sweet victory for Hill-cynical netizens everywhere. However one has to wonder, considering the complete lack of follow through on last years issue, whether or not the tenured Senators' doubts about 2590 made sense. Money is being spent, politicians enjoyed some savory election "reform" PR, but who knows what is actually being done. RedState alone has been the only web resource to provide hints that work is being done on the database since it's passage. Everyone else, from OMB itself to OMB Watch have provided no further details.
So here we have several of the same organizations, kicking up dust, about yet another transparency issue and scary "secret holds". But one has to wonder, are we really seeing anything more clearly? Electronic filing of campaign finance reports makes good sense, lets just hope that the netroot watchdogs stick around after the party's over, to actually make sure it happens.
I don't know all the facts here, but let's look at what I do know.
The Beltway Blogroll post you point to that supposedly disclaims this says two things:
1) "Democratic Sens. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin and Dianne Feinstein of California tried to get a vote on the bill yesterday, but Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., objected on behalf of another Republican senator."
2) "A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he isn't aware of any hold on the measure. "I know there was an objection raised (not by Sen. McConnell) to a unanimous consent vote yesterday on the bill, but that’s different from a hold," Don Stewart said via e-mail."
From the sunlight blog:
1) Just got a call back from Lamar Alexander's office. he does not have the hold on, however, the staff member did tell me that it was a Republican Senator. *groan*
Now, since Sen Alexander was the individual who object on behalf of another senator and HIS staff is the one saying there IS a hold on the bill by a Republican I'm betting there is one. Sen McConnell's spokesman saying he isn't aware of one is a far cry from Sen Alexander's staff claiming there is one...