The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog

The Parties Versus the People: An Interview with Mickey Edwards

 

Former U.S. Rep. Mickey Edwards.

The Parties Versus the People by Mickey Edwards. Available now from Yale Press.

By ANNA MEIER

With a dismal record of passing legislation, perpetuated by hyper-partisan gridlock, the 112^th Congress has been called the “worst Congress ever.” Some prefer to stop at “dysfunctional,” but whichever nickname you choose, there’s something seriously off about Congress these days.  Bills are proposed with the goal of advancing partisan interests, and not necessarily the public’s. Debates have deginerated into bitter partisan bickering, not thoughtful consideration of public policy.

In such an environment, it’s natural to search for someone to blame. But according to former Congressman Mickey Edwards, who spent many years as a member of the Republican leadership, the problem in Congress isn’t its members—it’s the system itself.

Fortunately, it’s not beyond repair. In his new book, The Parties Versus the People: How to Turn Democrats and Republicans into Americans, Edwards, who served 16 years in the U.S. House of Representatives representing Oklahoma's 5th Congressional District, lays out the features of the American political order that make it easy for parties to seek power over the public interest.

In order to combat cronyism and get Congress back on track, he proposes sweeping changes to our political system, from ending party-controlled primaries to eliminating corporate donations to candidates. We caught up with Edwards to talk about provoking accountability, moving beyond labels, and encouraging a more effective Congress.

POGO: You've said that partisanship, not polarization, is to blame for dysfunction in and frustration with government today. Can you explain the difference?

Mickey Edwards: Polarization is a natural part of the democratic process; there are more than 300 million of us and a lot of different viewpoints, some of them very strongly held.  A democracy depends on a vigorous exchange between those alternative visions.  Some of the greatest advances in our history have come not from the political center but from the “poles,” including the civil rights movement and the women’s movement, both of which were radical reversals of long-held practices and beliefs.

Partisanship, on the other hand, is the taking of political positions that seem advantageous to one’s political club. Today, neither Democrats nor Republicans are open to proposals—no matter what their merits—that emanate from a member of the other party. The democratic process requires a willingness to engage honestly in an exchange of views, with an openness to considering an opponent’s perspective; partisanship cuts off that exchange and proceeds solely from a cold political calculus that depends on hurting the other side in order to gain an advantage in the next election. The two terms—polarization and partisanship—are often confused, but they are very different.

Citizens United Hearing: A Conversation about Democracy and Transparency

By MARY PENG

The Project On Government Oversight has had a longtime interest in more transparency about federal contractors, including their influence through campaign spending and lobbying. Since the 2010 Citizens’ United vs. FEC ruling, that problem has only worsened.

The reason is that the ruling now allows federal contractors, along with other corporations and unions, to influence elections with unlimited campaign spending and not nearly enough disclosure.    

On July 24, more than 400 people attended a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on responses to Citizens United and the rise of Super PACs.  Subcommittee members and guest panelists called for greater inclusion of average American citizens in the campaign financing system and more disclosure of campaign spending.

The participating senators, all of whom were Democrats, lamented that the system is increasingly becoming the lone stage of wealthy individuals and corporations.

“Half of all super PAC money being spent in presidential elections [come] from 22 people, millionaires and billionaires buying their way in,” said subcommittee chairman Dick Durbin (D- Ill.) in his opening remarks. “Can we still proclaim to be the world’s model for free elections with open debates when we allow 22 wealthy individuals to control the terms of that debate and silence the voices of others?”

Nuclear Weapons Lobby Pumps Cash Into Congressional Races

A decomissioned Titan II nuclear missile, which is now part of a museum (photo by Flickr user Kingdafy).

Click here to join POGO's Un-Do Influence Campaign: a movement to reclaim Washington

By MIA STEINLE

The members of Congress with the most influence over nuclear weapons have received $2.9 million in campaign contributions this election cycle from defense contractors involved in the nuclear weapons lobby, according to a new report from the Center for International Policy. The contractors have given these members $18.7 million over the course of their tenures in Congress.

The report calls for the cancellation of two costly Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities, the postponement of the Air Force’s new nuclear bomber, and the reduction of the Navy’s ballistic missile submarine force. While the report calculates that these changes will yield taxpayers a savings of $46 billion over the next two decades, it says that “any effort to downsize the nation’s nuclear force is likely to be met with fierce opposition from the individuals and institutions that benefit from the nuclear status quo.”

Among those who benefit from the status quo are the contractors that manage two DOE nuclear facilities highlighted in the report—the proposed Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility and the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility. The contractors connected to the two facilities contributed more than $240,000 to members of Congress during the 2012 election cycle and nearly $2.3 million over the course of the members’ tenures in Congress.

7 Types of Government Information that Would Benefit from Springtime Sunshine

By DANA LIEBELSON

Here in the District, spring is in the air! Rock Creek Park is abloom, the tourists are out on the Mall, there are mile-long lines to the food trucks, and the sun is shining. At POGO, when we see sunshine, we can't help but consider one of our favorite issues: government transparency. Unfortunately, there's some important government information that’s still sitting in the dark.

We’ve put together a list of seven types of information generated by the executive branch that could benefit from a little springtime sunshine—and should be made public ASAP.  This list isn’t exhaustive, but it’s representative of the kinds of data, documents, records, and other information that we’d like to see prioritized in the President’s open government effort. To learn more, be sure to check out the openness floor.

1. Robust Contracting Data

Given the fact that POGO’s Bad Business report found that service contractors cost taxpayers almost twice as much as federal employees to perform comparable services, the public deserves more transparency in government contracting.  According to POGO General Counsel Scott Amey, who coauthored the report, “all paperwork produced during the contracting process, including contracts, task and delivery orders, price and cost information, proposals, solicitations, award decisions and justifications, audits, and performance and responsibility data should be posted on a public website.”

2. Performance Reports on the Contractors Managing the Sprawling Nuclear Weapons Complex

The Department of Energy spends a whopping 90 percent of its budget on contractors, and much of that goes to contractors managing the nuclear weapons complex—a task overseen by DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Unfortunately for taxpayers, the NNSA decided in October 2009 to withhold key reports on contractor performance—Performance Evaluation Plans (PEPs) and Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs)—from the public until three years after their completion. As POGO wrote to President Obama, PEPs and PERs are “perhaps the single most important information available to hold NNSA accountable. These evaluations assess the performance of the contractors who manage the laboratories and production facilities that comprise the national weapons complex. Additionally, this information demonstrates how effectively the government uses the power of the purse to hold the contractors accountable for their performance.”

POGO Opposes Legislation Allowing Contractors to Pay-to-Play in Secret

By SUZANNE DERSHOWITZ and ANGELA CANTERBURY

Yesterday, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) passed one of those euphemistically-named bills that does the opposite of what it says it will do. S.1100, the so-called "Keeping Politics Out of Federal Contracting Act," would actually ban public disclosure of certain election spending by contractors—thus leading to more pay-to-play by government contractors. Earlier this week, POGO and our allies sent a letter to Committee Chairman Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Ranking Member Susan Collins (R-ME) opposing S.1100.

Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) voiced similar concerns about the bill during yesterday’s committee meeting: “At a time where we’re trying to curb secret money in campaigns, I think this legislation takes away one of the few tools...I’ve said from the beginning, I don’t think corporations should have more power than people.”

POGO couldn’t agree more with Sen. Tester’s sentiments that passage of this bill would mean closing the door on an opportunity to require disclosure where there currently is none. It appears that his was the only recorded “no” vote on S.1100. We strongly urge other Senators to follow his lead in opposing this outright ban on transparency should it be considered by the full Senate.

Un-Do Influence: Air Force's Revolving Door Helped Booz Allen Hamilton Get Unfair Edge

Facepalm Ratings Guide = Stupefying example of everything that's wrong with the system. = Outrageous; shameless, even. = Worthy of rebuke. = Even if there's no conflict of interest, appearances matter.

---------------------------- Click here to join POGO's Un-Do Influence campaign.

By JOE NEWMAN

Global consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton is paying the price for playing fast and loose with federal contracting rules. But it's how Booz Allen's San Antonio operations may have obtained information from a competitor that takes our facepalm ratings to a new low.

According to a Feb. 6 Air Force memo, in April 2011, Booz Allen hired retired Air Force Lt. Col. Joselito Meneses, who had served as deputy chief in the Information Technology division of the Medical Support Agency under the Office of the Air Force Surgeon General.

On his first day of work for Booz Allen, Meneses arrived with a hard-drive containing non-public information he had obtained during his Air Force tenure.

Some of the data on the drive was proprietary information from one of Booz Allen's competitors, which the San Antonio office used to help shape its own bid to the Air Force, according to the memo.

As a result, the Booz Allen's San Antonio unit has been suspended and recommended for debarment. The company fired Meneses after a whistleblower brought the activity to the attention of company officials.

Meneses shows how the revolving door can corrupt the federal contracting system by allowing companies to get unfair, competitive advantages when they hire former government employees. The case also shows how former federal officials are motiviated to use their insider knowledge to help their new employers. Meneses knew better. He gets our maxium four-facepalm rating.

***

Rep. Grimm Faces Accusations of Improper Fundraising

We've raised questions about Rep. Michael Grimm's efforts to gut protections for financial sector whistleblowers, and how it appears the only people who would benefit from such legislation are Grimm's backers on Wall Street.

Now, Grimm (R-NY) is facing much more serious allegations of influence peddling and improper fundraising. According to a New York Times story, Grimm enlisted the help of Ofer Biton, an Israeli citizen, to help raise more than $500,000 from the followers of a New York rabbi.

The FDA's Better-Late-Than-Never Department, Super PAC'd and Casino Jack's New Gig

Click here to join POGO's Un-Do Influence campaign: a movement to end the undue influence that powerful corporate interests have on our federal government.

By JOE NEWMAN

Here at the headquarters for the Un-Do Influence Campaign, we love holding the powers that be accountable when they sell out the public interest on behalf of their cronies in industry. But that doesn't mean we won't hand out a few laurels here and there when someone does the right thing.

In the case of  the Food and Drug Administration's Dr. Margaret Hamburg, it's time to hand her a laurel, or at least half of one. If you recall, we gave her two "facepalms" recently because of the FDA's failure to recognize potential conflicts of interest on a joint advisory committee that was weighing the risks and benefits of the Yaz/Yasmin oral contraceptive. Three members of the joint committee, which essentially voted to endorse the pill, had financial ties to Bayer, the maker of the drug, while another member had ties to a company licensed to make a generic version.

Maybe it was the fuss we made about the tainted birth control vote (take a bow, because thousands of you signed our petition), but now according to Ed Silverman's excellent Pharmalot blog, Hamburg has decided to drop her unrelated push to loosen ethics rules for FDA advisory committees.

In doing so, Hamburg is listening to the advice that the Project On Government Oversight gave her in August. In an Aug. 3 letter, we told her that the FDA's rationale for loosening conflict of interest restrictions simply weren't true.

In fact, there was more than enough reason to think that the only ones to benefit from loosening the restrictions were pharmaceutical companies. We thank Dr. Hamburg for her about face but, unfortunately, the FDA has a LOT more work to do if it ever wants to free itself from industry influence.

As Colbert Exposes Underbelly of Super PACs, Should We Laugh or Cry?

Click here to join POGO's Un-Do Influence campaign: a movement to end the undue influence that powerful corporate interests have on our federal government.

By JOE NEWMAN

Are we seeing the "Colbert Effect" -- a greater awareness and concern about the impacts of Super Pacs on our elections? Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert has arguably done more to educate the average American about how Super Pacs work than a stack of New York Times editorials could ever hope to do.

A PEW Center survey found that among voters who were aware of the Citizens United ruling (the 2010 Supreme Court decision that opened the door to unlimited political spending by corporations, unions and advocacy groups), 65 percent said that Super Pacs were having a negative impact on the 2012 presidential campaign. Gotta figure there's a bunch of Colbert Report fans among those polled.

If you haven't seen Colbert and Jon Stewart lampoon the federal law that requires Super Pacs to act independently of candidates, check it out.

Will SEC Watchdog Lose its Bite?

That collective sigh of relief you're hearing? That's coming from some Wall Street types who just got the news that David Kotz, the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) inspector general, is leaving at the end of January. (Charles S. Clark writes about Kotz' departure in Government Executive.)

Un-Do Influence: Time to Reclaim Washington from Powerful Special Interests

By JOE NEWMAN

It's well known that Big Pharma and the Food and Drug Administration have a, um, complicated relationship. On one hand, the FDA regulates the pharmaceutical and medical device industries to keep unsafe drugs and devices off the market, while at the same time having to depend on hundreds of millions of dollars each year in user fees from the companies it regulates.

So, it's hardly a surprise that the agency has been riddled with one scandal after another involving conflicts of interest. Now comes the report that four members of an FDA joint committee that recently weighed the risks and benefits of the Yaz/Yasmin oral contraceptive had ties to Bayer (the drugmaker) or a related company. Be sure to read Adam Zagorin's story that raises questions about whether drug company influence might have put millions of women at risk.

We're Mad as Hell

Shining a light on these questionable situations is what our new campaign "Un-Do Influence" is all about. Our aim is to not only expose conflicts of interest, influence peddling and revolving door hires but to do something about it.

Happy Ending in the Foreign Funding Fight

By BEN FREEMAN

Fans of protecting American democracy from unlimited foreign money can rejoice, as Monday morning the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision to maintain a ban on political contributions by foreign nationals. Moreover, their affirmation is more than a dismissal of the case—it’s a precedent.  “In other words, by today’s order, the Supreme Court agreed that the lower court got it right,” as Rick Hasen wrote on his Election Law blog.

In the case, Bluman v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), the plaintiffs and those who supported them, like the Institute for Justice’s Paul Sherman, used the Citizens United decision that money equals speech in politics to argue that it was a violation of the first amendment to bar foreign nationals from making campaign contributions.

As I wrote on POGO’s blog and in the New York Times, these arguments ignore a number of Supreme court precedents, which unequivocally state that certain activities of foreign nationals can be restricted because “the right to govern is reserved to citizens.” Much more importantly, they ignore the threat legalization of foreign national contributions would pose to American democracy. Politicians respond disproportionately to the interests of those who finance their campaigns. Thus, Bluman and his advocates would have created a system with politicians beholden to those whose interests were as foreign as their money. American citizens, meanwhile, would have been left with a government that was not for, of, or by them.

But, with the Supreme Court standing up for American democracy and voters, this story has a happy ending. At a time when confidence in government is at historic lows, voters today can applaud a judicial branch that protected them from undue foreign influence.

Ben Freeman is a POGO National Security Fellow.

Follow @BenFreemanDC

Image via Kurt Magoon.

10 Head-Turning Quotes From 2011

By JOE NEWMAN

From the outrageous to the sublime to the profound, newsmakers had a lot to say in 2011. Here's some of the things said in 2011 that are worth a second take. Please click to the jump to see the "10 Head-Turning Quotes From 2011."

Do American Citizens Deserve Sovereignty?

By BEN FREEMAN, Ph.D.

In a deceptively titled op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, Paul Sherman asks, "Do Foreigners Deserve Free Speech Rights?" But, Sherman is not actually discussing free speech--he's advocating for allowing foreign governments, businesses, political parties, and individuals to dump unlimited money into U.S. politics.

Sherman's argument is in relation to a lawsuit filed by two foreign nationals, Benjamin Bluman and Asenath Steiman, against the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which challenges the ban on foreign national contributions. The case was dismissed by a U.S. District Court in August, but the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, which, on Monday, opted not to review the case.

According to Sherman this was ill-advised, because the Bluman/Steiman case is “well grounded in Supreme Court precedent.”

But, if you objectively review Supreme Court precedent, this claim is contentious at best.