Personal Democracy Plus Our premium content network. LEARN MORE You are not logged in. LOG IN NOW >

A Change. Not an End.

BY Chris Nolan | Sunday, March 13 2005

A few days ago, I got smacked around by the folks at Captains Quarters over a column I wrote in eWeek about blogging and the FEC.

The story had a dumb headline that didn't really get at the point I was trying to make so Captain Ed made fun of me then pointed out that my eWeek column would exempt me from the commission's rules. Maybe. But maybe not. In any case, I'm not standing behind anyone in claiming free speech rights on a par with Big Media for anyone and everyone working on-line. Anyone who tries it can meet my lawyer. And he makes me look like a nice, refined quiet sort.

Where I differ from the folks at CQ is important, however. And it's one that's going to get easily lost in the calls – particularly on the right – for the FEC to be shut down. Glenn Reynolds has raised his powerful voice in support of this idea. But I think he's wrong for a few reasons.

One, readers – all of our readers, regardless of their political orientation – need to know when they're reading folks who are supported by candidates or campaigns. That's why advertising is marked the way it is and set off in a space apart from our editorial work. That's why campaigns have disclosure laws and it's why we should all be in favor of their being made as clear for the on-line world as they are for everyone else. (Insert dismissive, "clear as mud" joke here from your favor right wing blogger). At the same time, voters should know how politicians are being influenced. That's one thing the FEC does and does well and there's not reason for anyone in public office to stop disclosing their funding sources. That's something worth remembering as we move forward.

Having worked in Washington for a number of years – and relied on the data housed at the FEC for a lot of good stories – I think the commission ought to keep doing what it's doing. I'd offer one big change, however. I'd make the FEC require candidates to file weekly – if not daily – accounting of their fundraising and expenditures via the web. That way, we could all see what's going on as it happens, not weeks, months or years later.

Such disclosure – which become utter transparency at that speed – does away with much of what bother Reynolds et al. It means a change in the law – and doing away with most of the rule recently enacted by the much ballyhooed Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act – but it would be step in the right directionl.

This argument has always been dismissed – unfairly, I think – by campaign reform advocates. When I called and asked PDF contributor Rick Hasen about it, he said that disclosure wouldn't prevent corruption and it wouldn't level the playing field between rival campaigns, or rival parties.

He's right. In the pre-Internet political age, instant reporting meant very little. It wasn't technically feasible. The results of most campaigns' disclosure would, for the most part, allow candidates and campaigns to hide in plain site. So few reporters use FEC records – although they're a popular vein for oppo researchers to mine -- that disclosure as its current done and reviewed has no punch.

But in an age when Josh Micah Marshall can point his readers at their local Congress to reverse a change in House rules and – these days – shore up the Democrat's fight to save Social Security, when Reynolds and others can urge bloggers to criticize the recently enacted Bankruptcy legislation and lobby Congress on the FEC, disclosure, it seems, becomes a very powerful tool. There are more people – Grassroots Journalist, Citizen Journalists, stand alone journalist – watching, reporting and commentating; immediate disclosure gives them an important and powerful tool. The FEC doesn't – and shouldn't – go out of business. But it should change – soon -- how it does business.

News Briefs

RSS Feed wednesday >

In Mexico, A Wiki Makes Corporate Secrets Public

Earlier this year the Latin American NGO Poder launched Quién Es Quién Wiki (Who's Who Wiki), a corporate transparency project more than two years in the making. The hope is that the platform will be the foundation for a citizen-led movement demanding transparency and accountability from businesses in Mexico. Data from Quién Es Quién Wiki is already helping community activists mobilize against foreign companies preparing to mine the mountains of the Sierra Norte de Puebla.

GO

thursday >

NY Study Shows How Freedom of Information Can Inform Open Data

On New York State's open data portal, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation has around 40 data resources of varying sizes, such as maps of lakes and ponds and rivers, bird conservation areas and hiking trails. But those datasets do not include several data resources that are most sought after by many New York businesses, a new study from advocacy group Reinvent Albany has found. Welcome to a little-discussed corner of so-called "open government"--while agencies often pay lip service to the cause, the data they actually release is sometimes nowhere close to what is most wanted. GO

Responding to Ferguson, Activists Organize #NMOS14 Vigils Across America In Just 4 Days

This evening peaceful crowds will gather at more than 90 locations around the country to honor the victims of police brutality, most recently the unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, who was shot and killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, on Saturday. A moment of silence will begin at 20 minutes past 7 p.m. (EST). The vigils are being organized almost entirely online by the writer and activist Feminista Jones (@FeministaJones), with help from others from around the country who have volunteered to coordinate a vigil in their communities. Organizing such a large event in only a few days is a challenge, but in addition to ironing out basic logistics, the National Moment of Silence (#NMOS14) organizers have had to deal with co-optation, misrepresentation, and Google Docs and Facebook pages that are, apparently, buckling under traffic.

GO

More