By Lyle Hickman and Billy Hallowell, VoterWatch Staff

This week’s Transparency Recap opens with a Corruption Chronicles blog entry entitled “‘Nonpartisan’ La Raza Council Endorses Obama.” The National Council of La Raza was founded in 1968 in Washington D.C. as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. While the organization touts nonpartisan status, Judicial Watch (via its blog, the Corruption Chronicles) is charging partisan support for the presumed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. According to Corruption Chronicles:

“. . . La Raza President Janet Murguia stood by as Los Angeles’ renowned Chicano mayor (Antonio Villaraigosa) praised the Illinois senator during the group’s annual convention in San Diego. A former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman, Villaraigosa assured the crowd of thousands that Obama is Latinos’ best hope for reforming the nation’s federal immigration policies.”

Moving on, ABC News’ The Blotter covers a warning issued by the United States embassy located in Baghdad, Iraq. According to The Blotter, “Weapons are continuing to be left unattended throughout the Embassy compound . . .” Unattended weaponry in an embassy is unacceptable, especially when considering the current situation in Iraq. The war makes the embassy a prime target of the Iraqi insurgents. According to The Blotter the U.S. embassy warns its employees and cohorts:

“. . . Just to be clear, the embassy reminds employees:

-- Don’t leave your gun unattended when using the embassy pool. “If using the Embassy Pool, you must designate a gear guard.”
-- Don’t leave guns unattended in vehicles, even if the vehicle is locked.
-- And don’t carry your gun if you’ve been drinking. “No weapon will be carried while drinking alcoholic beverages.”

Anyone caught violating the rules will have his or her weapons confiscated, the document warns, and a supervisor will have to sign a letter requesting that it be returned after the individual has “been counseled on proper weapons retention . . .”

In other news, Secrecy News penned a piece about the “Foreign Relations of the United States”—a series that the State Department defines as ”. . . [a presentation of] the official documentary historical record of major U.S. foreign policy decisions and significant diplomatic activity. The series, which is produced by the State Department’s Office of the Historian, began in 1861 and now comprises more than 350 individual volumes.”

While one can easily see the importance of such an official historical account of U.S. activity, Secrecy News reports the following:

“The “Foreign Relations of the United States” (FRUS) series . . . remains unlikely to meet the legal requirement that it be published no later than 30 years after the events that it describes, an official advisory committee has told the Secretary of State.”

Over on the Sunlight blogs, Ellen Miller covers the growing divide between Sen. Joe Lieberman and the Democratic Party. According to Miller,

“The Connecticut Independent’s high-profile support for the Iraq War and a bellicose demeanor toward Iran, as well as his enthusiastic endorsement of and active campaigning for Sen. John McCain’s presidential bid and his criticism of Sen. Barack Obama as the presumptive Democratic nominee, have all helped to put his relationship with the Democrats in quite the precarious spot.”

The relationship is in such shambles that left-wing activists are petitioning for Lieberman to be stripped of his rank and removed from his Homeland Security chairmanship. Democrats are calling for these actions to be taken following the 2008 presidential election in November.

And in other news, former Arlington National Cemetery Public Affairs Director Gina Gray was allegedly fired for advocating for more media access to soldiers’ funeral processions. After publicly disclosing the fact that ceremony officials are not allowing media access at funerals—even after families agreed to said coverage—Gray was fired. All Things Whistleblower poses an interesting thought regarding the next administration:

“With the images of funerals being so powerful, and thought of to raise the conscious level of the casualties of war, it will be very interesting to see how this issue is handled by the next presidential  administration.”

In closing, OpenSecrets.org’s Capital Eye is ”Calling All Citizen Journalists.” Check the contest out and you could potentially win $100!

By Eric Margulies, VoterWatch

On May 24, 2007, Congress passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. For many, the bill signifies the government’s movement toward more citizen access and government transparency. While the bill certainly poses a victory to the open government community, its overall impact must be properly assessed, as valid criticisms can surely be posed.

Beginning at the end of July 2008, lobbyists will have to disclose campaign contributions, which include contributions made through a political action committee owned or controlled by the lobby, lawmaker honorary expenses, expenses for meetings with lawmakers, and donations to presidential libraries.

The bill also disallows former senators and executive branch officials from lobbying Congress for at least two years after leaving their elected positions; former House members must wait only one year.

These developments undoubtedly show the increasing support that the notion of open government is getting amongst members of the legislative branch. These changes also pave the way for unprecedented transparency that will enable citizens to see the machinations of what was previously known as “backroom politics.”

This transparency will logically lead to further accountability on the part of lobbies, which may considerably decrease the incestuous cronyism that tends to permeate the political system. The bill itself says that it will work towards “closing of the revolving door.”

While Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 was clearly the right move, the bill isn’t without its faults. To begin, there are concerns about just how much transparency this bill can provide, as questions surround loopholes and the required frequency of reporting. On the Sunlight blogs, Ellen Miller recently questioned the provision that requires lobbyists to file only two times each year:

“I was struck by the lack of timeliness of these new reports. Being filed only twice a year raises the question: how much transparency will these forms actually provide? With all the online tools we have access to today, why not have instantaneous disclosure? Why wait six months, when the money changing hands is affecting legislation being written today? It seems to me that this new requirement will give us some more information about the role of the power lobbyist, it does little to deal with the most critical problem - the timeliness of reporting.”

When the July 30^th deadline for filing passes, some of the questions regarding the bill will likely be answered and a few new questions may also arise. Many Americans see lobbying as one of the many symbols of government corruption and sketchy politics.

Simply speaking, the word conjures up images of unfair patronage and back room deals being made in smoky rooms somewhere not far from K Street. However, if this bill does as it promises or simply sets into motion a chain of events leading to further disclosure, the popular conception of lobbies as insider-only political machines may be drastically altered.

Happy Independence Day, America (a little late)! We hope everyone enjoyed the holiday. Today, we’re going to recap some of the best in transparency and citizen engagement news from the end of last week through today—Monday, July 07, 2008.

Today’s recap starts with a piece entitled, “Red, White and Green” from the Capital Eye blog. While our entire nation has been celebrating our independence from Great Britain, we might actually be more dependent than we realize. According to Capital Eye,

“...36 current members of Congress have collected at least 20 percent of their contributions from a single industry, setting up a scheme of dependence and perhaps the expectation of a tit-for-tat.”

Moreover, this dependency on certain industries should concern Americans. If our representatives in government are receiving money from companies, organizations and specific industries, how likely are they to represent our interests over the interests of their donors?

And over on the Corruption Chronicles blog, Detroit is the subject of conversation. According to CC, the city’s governing council is being investigated by the federal government for allegedly accepting bribes; the bribes were allegedly accepted by council members in exchange for the approval of a multi million dollar contract. According to CC:

“...several members of the Detroit City Council are suspected of taking bribes to approve a $47 million contract last fall with a Houston company to handle sludge waste from the city’s wastewater treatment plant. The FBI has electronic surveillance evidence of City Council President Pro Tem Monica Conyers taking bribes from the company, Synagro Technologies.”

In other news, Karl Rove will not be testifying in front of the House Judiciary Committee. According to CREW, Rove has apparently invoked executive privilege. According to Politico (as per CREW):

“Karl Rove, former White House deputy chief of staff and President Bush’s top political adviser, is refusing to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to testify on “politicization” within the Justice Dept. Rove had been scheduled to appear next Thursday, July 10.”

And over on the Washington Post’s Indep Dump blog, focus is centered upon detainees who have been apprehended abroad. Over the past six-and-a-half years, detainees apprehended in the War on Terror have been fingerprinted and processed. As it turns out, hundreds of these individuals have criminal records. According to Post:

“The records suggest that potential enemies abroad know a great deal about the United States because many of them have lived here, officials said. The matches also reflect the power of sharing data across agencies and even countries, data that links an identity to a distinguishing human characteristic such as a fingerprint.”

And over on the CommonBlog, it’s all about Iran/U.S. relations and the measures currently brewing in the House and Senate.

Also, be sure to check out TPM’s Daily Muck for intriguing daily news briefs.

This weekend’s edition of the Transparency Recap focuses begins with the POGO blog’s coverage of a Washington Post piece by Professor Paul Light. According to POGO, Light tackles the challenges the next president will face upon entering office. From organizing the many titles and positions within the executive branch, to better managing contractors, the needs associated with reformation are plentiful. POGO ends the entry with the following words:

“With the retirement of the baby boomers from government, the time is right for the next president to reform the bureaucracy and create a more effective federal governing body.  Change is imperative not only for the next president’s approval numbers, but for America’s well-being.”

And over at All Things Reform, David Weller is encouraging synergy! Check out his new list of online collaboration projects. If your organization is currently involved in implementing a project, this might be the perfect place to have it listed.

On the Sunlight blogs, Ellen Miller covers research conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics. According to Miller, the research surrounds the Personal Financial Disclosure forms of Congressional members. According to the Center for Responsive Politics:

“Forty-six husbands and wives of Congress members reported owning stock in 2006 in companies that have a vested interest in their spouses’ committees, worth a total of $27.3 million to $46.7 million.”

Over at ReadtheBill.org, praise is in abundance for Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) who has been voicing concern over Congress’ inability to read bills prior to voting on them. ReadtheBill.org is encouraging Culberson to sponsor H.Res.504. According to Open Congress, the resolution would do the following: “[Amend] the Rules of the House of Representatives to require that legislation and conference reports be available on the Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and for other purposes.”

The always-useful Secrecy News blog highlights some intriguing and relevant CRS reports. From Iran’s economy to the costs associated with war on terror operations, these reports are essential to explore. CDT covers one CRS report, in particular, on the PolicyBeta blog: CRS No. RL34454—an overview of U.S. technology and science policy.

In California, judicial corruption was just dealt an impressive blow. As per the Corruption Chronicles, a California judge has been removed for “manifestly unjudicial” misconduct. According to CC:

“The Orange County Superior Court judge (Kelly MacEachern), a former county prosecutor, filed false and misleading expense claims for a legal conference in San Diego and then lied under oath when questioned about them.”

Over at All Things Whistleblower, talk is centered upon three Congressional senators who are calling on Congress to investigate the FBI’s alleged treatment of an agent whistleblower. The agent testified in front of Congress back in May; his testimony focused on internal issues that have hampered counterterrorism strategy and effectiveness. Two days after the statements were made, he was accused of violating FBI rules and regulations.

And over on the Common blog, Common Cause discusses the launch of its new campaign: Recapture the Flag!

To conclude the weekend edition of the recap, be sure to check out Democracy21‘s response to the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the so-called “Millionaire’s Amendment.” According to the Democracy21 blog:

“While we are disappointed in the decision, however, it is important to keep in mind that the Supreme Court ruling does not in any way disturb the earlier Court decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission that upheld the constitutionality of the soft money ban contained in BCRA.”

Welcome to the Friday edition of the Transparency Recap. Since we last published, the political arena has been bustling with news and happenings. Since it’s been a few days since the last recap, we’ll try to cover the most impactful events that occurred during the course of the week.

Undoubtedly, one of the biggest issues this week has been the privatization of Obama’s campaign finances. According to OpenSecrets’ Capital Eye blog, Obama has forgoed more than $80 in public financing “...making him the first major party nominee to reject the taxpayers’ grant since the program began in 1976.” While Obama insists that the system if broken, McCain (who plans to use the public financing system) is accusing Obama of going back on his word to stay within the public system.

On this same issue, Democracy 21 issued a pointed statement about Obama’s decision to privatize:

“We had hoped and expected that Senator Obama would stick with the public pledge he made to accept public financing and spending limits for the presidential general election, if he was nominated, and if his Republican opponent also agreed to accept public financing and spending limits for the general election. These conditions have been met.”

This morning, Capital Eye shifted gears and posted a piece that focuses on two of the nation’s biggest lobbying firms. These firms—Cassidy and Associates and Van Scoyoc Associates—will not “...attend either political party’s gathering, sponsor parties or donate to the host committees that organize the four-day fetes.” Sure, these big-wigs aren’t participating in the aforementioned terms, but the money flow is still coming through:

“What these lobbyists lack in convention participation, they make up for in campaign contributions to federal candidates, committees and parties. Among lobbying firms, Van Scoyoc Associates is the third-ranked contributor in this election cycle, associated with at least $583,000. Cassidy and Associates is right behind with campaign contributions totaling $490,300. Both firms have favored Democrats with about 60 percent of their employees’ total contributions.”

And if that’s not hair-raising enough, according to the Judicial Watch blog, the U.S. military has lost nuclear missile components. According to Judicial Watch,

“A British international business newspaper disclosed this week that a Pentagon investigation found that the Air Force could not account for more than 1,000 sensitive components previously included in its nuclear inventory.”

Over on the Sunlight blogs, Ellen Miller coins her own phrase: “Tweetalogue.” Over the past few days, she and Rep. John Culberson have been twittering back and forth. The issue at hand? Ample time for government officials—and citizens—to read bills before they are voted on. According to Miller (and VoterWatch mirrors this sentiment),

“Sunlight thinks if bills and amendments were actually posted online in advance of votes citizens would have an opportunity to get on the act too.”

Over at All Things Whistleblower, John McCain is taking heat for his energy proposal that calls for 45 nuclear energy plants over the next 22 years. From pricing to safety, some individuals have serious problems with the construction of more nuclear power plants. With this said, others see this plan as a step in the right direction—away from America’s current reliance on fossil fuels.

On the POGO blog, focus is centered upon the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008. Signed into law by President Bush on Tuesday, this law “requires foreign subsidiaries of federal contractors to be treated as American companies for tax purposes.” Due to the changes it is expected that $850 million in tax revenues will be generated over the next 10 years:

“Some contractors have been creating subsidiary companies in jurisdictions with advantageous tax laws, such as the Cayman Islands, without even conducting any operations there. American workers are technically employed by these subsidiaries, allowing the contractor to avoid paying payroll taxes.  These taxes are used to fund programs such as Social Security and Medicare, so other taxpayers end up assuming the burden.”

A few days have passed since our last Transparency Recap. If you’re a regular reader, you probably recall seeing Ellen Miller’s coverage of the soft money and its role in the 2008 campaign in our last edition. I was happy to learn that the issue hasn’t gone away. Today, the Capital Eye blog continues the coverage streak:

“Like a fly that refuses to buzz off, soft money seems to have found its way back into the campaign contribution mix. After the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act banned soft money, or unlimited contributions to parties that could then be doled out to candidates, it should have been gone for good.”

Clearly, this is an issue that screams public interest, so continued coverage is more than welcome. Explore the article further for some prime examples of companies who are contributing to the conventions this year.

Over on the Free Government Information blog, discussion is centered upon this past Wednesday’s hearing on H.R. 6193, The “Improving Public Access to Documents Act.” The FGI blog has reprinted Patrice McDermott’s testimony, which sheds some intriguing light on the current state of transparency:

“The problem for the public is that we have “translucence, not transparency, i.e., transparency within the network, but opacity to those outside."* The “need-to-share"” cannot be limited to agencies within governments and defense and homeland security contractors; it also must include, to the greatest extent possible, sharing relevant information with the public.”

And on the scandal-ridden front, it turns out that Barack Obama’s (former) advisor—Jim Johnson—isn’t the only politician who is connected to the Countrywide Financial Corp. scandal (following disclosure of his alleged ties to the company, Johnson resigned from an advisory post within the Obama campaign). Others who have allegedly used the V.I.P. loan program are Christopher Dodd, Kent Conrad, and Richard Holbrooke (Jimmy Carters assistant Secretary of State), among others.

As per Paul Blumenthal on the Sunlight blogs:

“Dodd and Conrad were listed as “Friends of Angelo,” after Countrywide’s CEO Angelo Mozilo, and “received better deals than those available to ordinary borrowers.” It is unclear whether Dodd and Conrad were aware of the special treatment as “Friends of Angelo,” “weren’t told exactly how many points were waived on their loans,” unless they asked.”

Over at Common Cause’s Common Blog allegations against the Bush Administration are raging. On Tuesday, Common Cause hosted a panel to discuss the alleged violations. While reporting on the panel’s topical coverage, blogger Mary Jo Cittadino penned the following:

“The Administration has disregarded the rule of law through over-broad assertions of executive power, abuse of signing statements, and policies that arguably flout the Constitution regarding interrogation, detention, and intelligence gathering.”

And as usual, All Things Reform is making surfing the blogosphere more productive, more proactive—and much simpler! In addition to regularly reading the Transparency Recap, we recommend that you check out the ATR site for updated feeds from a plethora of government reform organizations.

Over on OMB Watch’s budget blog, be sure to check out today’s fiscal policy report for information on unemployment, earmarks and taxes. To recap: earmarks are making a (less than stylish) comeback, unemployment isn’t looking too good, and multi-million dollar increases to the national debt could potentially be on the horizon.

Today’s Transparency Recap starts out with Democracy 21’s mention of a Washington Post editorial piece released this week entitled, “Stop Raising Cash.” According to Democracy 21, the article makes the case for why Obama and McCain should utilize the presidential public financing system for the 2008 presidential campaign; it also argues that the two candidates should reform the current system following its use in the general campaign.

“...both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain could and should improve the way their campaigns report the identities of their bundlers. Mr. Obama distinguishes among those who have raised . . . $200,000-and-up . . . There are 78 in this last, elite category and sure to be more as Hillary Rodham Clinton’s fundraising machine gears up for the Obama campaign. The McCain campaign lists bundlers of . . . $250,000 and up (of whom there are 33). This disclosure is commendable for going beyond what is legally required: zilch. But . . . voters deserve more than these sketchy figures in understanding to whom, and for how much, their next president may be indebted.”

In other news, remember Jose Padilla? He is the U.S. citizen who was accused of providing assistance to the Al-Qaeda back in 2002. Following his arrest, President Bush labeled him an “illegal enemy combatant.” Yesterday, Secrecy News reported the disappearance of Padilla’s interrogation tape:

“In a report to the National Archives (pdf) released last week, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) said it could not locate a recording of the final interrogation of Jose Padilla . . . “

Over at Intel Dump, Phillip Carter of The Washington Post suggests that Robert Gates may have had more in mind than nuclear security when he replaced the Air Force’s top leadership last week, while the POGO blog wonders what the future holds for the Air Force:

“Will the installation of the first non-fighter or bomber pilot in the Air Force’s top military command slot since it was created after World War II mean a shift in its mission emphasis?  Will the Air Force prioritize the support of ground forces with cargo and refueling planes and tactical aerial intelligence and close air support over aerial combat?”

And over on the Sunlight blogs, among other things, Ellen Miller covers special interest dollars and their infusion into the bank accounts of both political parties. The donated monies will assist in funding the party conventions. Miller properly reacts to this absurdity with the following:

”The presidential convention loophole, however, allows unlimited giving, and for the corporation, it is all tax deductible. The parties are offering access to lawmakers, party bosses and potential members of the next administration in exchange for corporate dollars. Absolutely outrageous.”

Also on Sunlight, Connor Kenny discusses the many issues surrounding copyright. While companies seek to protect their content from infringement, most public interest groups welcome vast distribution of their work. While this is the case, the absence of a Creative Commons license or other similar rights usage agreement often hampers the dissemination of public interest research, thus squelching distribution dreams. According to Kenny:

“The advent of the Web has infinitely expanded that potential as reports no longer have to be mail-ordered or press releases picked up by reporters to get your message out. That is, unless you copyright your materials, preventing them from finding their way into Wikipedia, blogs or the classroom.”

And last but not least, The American Constitution Society reports today on the renewed attempt to amend FISA. According to ACS, Senator Christipher Bond maintains that America will lose intelligence capabilities if the amendments are not made. With this said, a coalition of civil liberties groups believe that amending FISA would, “unreasonably and unnecessarily authorize broad surveillance of Americans’ international communications without meaningful Fourth Amendment protections. ACS provides additional corroboratory information on this debate.

This weekend’s Transparency Recap starts with an article about the securities industry and its decision to back Barack Obama. While Wall Street is typically cozy with Republicans, industry funding has been pouring in for Obama for months now—even though many Wall Streeters prefer McCain’s policies to Obama’s. Clearly, this shows their inclination that Obama might win come November, with their contributions serving as a peace gift (i.e. they want to be on his side if he is, indeed, elected):

“It’s true that the Republican-friendly securities industry has been sending the most contributions to Obama’s campaign above all other contenders for months. But Wall Street is largely reacting to a mood change and antagonism toward Bush. Whatever happens come January, investors want to make nice with the party in power.”

OpenSecrets’ Capital Eye blog weighs in on the security industry’s apparent change of heart:

“Should Obama continue to be this industry’s financial favorite, it will become the first time since 1994 that the Democrats will have brought in more Wall Street donations than the Republicans.”

Over on All Things Whistleblower, the FDA is being questioned for allowing the re-admittance of Proheart 6—a drug that was pulled in 2004 after being linked to more than 500 canine deaths—back into the marketplace.

And CREW reports on an issue that’s close to the hearts of all members of the government transparency community—revolving door syndrome. As per the CREW blog, a New York Times editorial focuses on Dennis Hassert’s new position at a D.C. lobbying firm:

“Mr. Hastert, the G.O.P. stalwart who presided during the Jack Abramoff lobbying corruption debacle and the Mark Foley House page scandal, joined a blue-chip lobbying firm this week as a “strategic counsellor” at an annual salary estimated at $500,000-plus. Mr. Hastert...joins the more prized Congressional and executive alumni who schmooze old pals still in power without the need to formally register as day-to-day lobbyists.”

And let’s not forget about gaps in reporting when it comes to supposed terrorism suspects. It turns out that, while local law enforcement offices are supposed to contact federal authorities if and when they run across potential terror suspects, they often fail to do so. Clearly, this is unacceptable, considering that the American people’s safety is at stake:

“Local police departments are supposed to notify the FBI’s terrorist center every time routine computerized background checks trigger electronic alerts from the TSC. This usually happens in the case of individuals who violate traffic rules or are involved in domestic disturbances in municipalities around the country.”

According to the Corruption Chronicles, the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center was created after 9/11 as an oversight measure to catch potential security gaps.

And on a more victorious note, Secrecy News reports that the Department of Energy is “committed” to government declassification—or so it seems. The energy department responded favorably to a request from President Bush that asked for responses to recommendations from the Public Interest Declassification Board. According to The National Archives:

“The Public Interest Declassification Board is an advisory committee established by Congress in order to promote the fullest possible public access to a thorough, accurate, and reliable documentary record of significant U.S. national security decisions and activities.”

And over on All Things Reform, you’re being encouraged to let your representative and two senators know that you’d like to see enhanced whistleblower protections for government employees.

Today’s Transparency Recap starts out with an interesting piece from OpenSecrets’ Capital Eye newslog. Once again, Sen. John McCain is being questioned for his associations with lobbyists. Former Sen. Phil Gramm is the co-chair of McCain’s 2008 bid for the presidency. Gramm recently left K Street in an effort to adhere to McCain’s new campaign regulations—that campaign members choose between lobbying and working on the campaign. And although Gramm left K Street quite willingly, critics still cite issues with McCain’s allegiance to him:

“But now McCain faces a host of questions about why he’s relying on someone who has seemingly taken one too many spins through the revolving door between the public and private sectors.”

OpenSecrets provides interesting information on Gramm’s close connections to banking and securities and investment industries and the potential fiscal issues that many attribute to a deregulation bill that he passed while in the Senate. While worries are surely warranted, it must also be noted that all three presidential candidates receive donations from the financial/insurance/real estate industries (with the two Democratic nominees topping the charts).

And Ellen Miller at the Sunlight Foundation covers a new report by the Government Accountability Office that claims that “ ... defense contractors employed over 86,000 former [Department of Defense] employees who had left the agency since 2001.” While not a newly recognized problem, Miller’s piece shows that conflicts of interest are still being overlooked. Perhaps the most worrisome facts were found when the GAO discovered that some individuals were working on projects that they once had jurisdiction over while at the DOD.

OMB Watch takes on regulatory policy and midnight regulations. What’s a midnight regulation, you ask? A White House memo that was recently sent around; it asked all agencies that intend to finalize new policies to propose them before June 1, 2008. According to OMB Watch, the White House Chief of Staff,

“. . . issued the memo under the guise of reversing “the historical tendency of administrations to increase regulatory activity in their final months”—commonly known as midnight regulations. In reality, the memo may simply change when the clock strikes midnight in order to insulate potentially controversial rules from disapproval by a new administration.”

Moving onward, the CREW blog reports on another former Congressional aide who is being charged with conspiracy to fraud the House:

“John Albaugh is accused of accepting meals, sports and concert tickets, and other perks from lobbyists in exchange for official favors, according to charges outlined in a criminal information filed in federal court on Friday.”

While Sen. Barack Obama claims he’ll withdraw troops within 16 months of assuming office, ABC News’ The Blotter reports that the U.S. government is currently making plans that might extend U.S. presence—and influence—in Iraq:

“Contracting documents show the Pentagon and State Department are looking to hire “mentors” for Iraqi government officials, security personnel to protect Iraqi judges, linguists, and food service for a new U.S.-run prison, according to the Washington Post’s Walter Pincus. The contracts run for a year, and offer up to four subsequent “option years,” if the U.S. government decides to use the services that long . . .—and underscore “the difficulty the next president will face in pulling personnel out of the country,” Pincus writes.”

And last but not least comes an intriguing piece from POGO. According to POGO, the government needs to be more transparent when it comes to a potential flu pandemic reaching the U.S. According to POGO,

“. . . under the government’s current plan, a mass-produced flu vaccine is still years away.  Even if a pandemic hit the U.S., it would take an additional six months to make the vaccine available to everyone.” 

Starting off today’s Transparency Recap is a Corruption Chronicles blog entry about a Texas immigration law that was ruled unconstitutional this week. City lawmakers in a Dallas suburb enacted the law, which prevented illegal immigrants from renting apartments. Interestingly, the law had backing from community members in addition to the aforementioned legislative support.

According to CC, the unconstitutionality was determined based on the notion that the federal government is the only legal level at which immigration policy can be set. According to CC, ”The Farmers Branch council passed the ordinance in 2006 in an effort to curb the illegal immigration crisis that has devastated the entire state of Texas as well as other border states.”

This is just one example of how local governments can easily find themselves in court spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect localized laws that are intended to curb illegal immigration. The CC piece is definitely worth the read.

And over on the CREW blog, discussion is centered upon Alaska’s two incumbent candidates—Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young and the looming chatter about their potential indictments. While they deny wrongdoing, neither official is willing to discuss details. What the open government community might be interested in, however, is the difficulty associated with charging members of the legislative branch. According to CREW:

“It remains especially difficult to charge members of Congress for matters related to legislation. The Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause offers a broad shield against interference by the Justice Department and other agencies of the executive branch into how a congressman might have created, for example, an earmark that benefited a campaign contributor, family member or former aide—matters that are part of the investigations of Young and Stevens.”

And over at TPM Muckraker, Andrew Tilghman takes on earmark in an interesting story about Duncan D. Hunter (son of Rep. Duncan Hunter) who is running for his father’s Congressional seat. According to Tilghman, defense contractors who were assisted by the elder Hunter are now donating to his son’s campaign. Some believe that his father’s earmarking has paid off.

In his most recent All Things Whistleblower entry, Dylan Blaylock focuses his energies on a new global warming report. While the report—prepared by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program—highlights negative effects of global warming, Blaylock claims that its release has not been hampered by White House censorship like past initiatives.

And last but certainly not least comes the most recent Secrecy News post about government oversight and the lack of adequate provisions for the monitoring of U.S. intelligence. To sum it up in a few words, a recent report from the Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General indicates that efforts to perform adequate oversight have decreased in recent times. In March, the DoD Inspector General told Congress the following:

“We have not been able to perform planned audits and evaluations in key intelligence disciplines such as Imagery Intelligence, Measurement and Signature Intelligence and Open Source Intelligence.”

We’ll have to monitor this closely, as Secrecy News reports that the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee discussed amending some of the oversight responsibility that is currently given to the Government Accountability Office back in February. Such a proposal might be necessary if we want to see the proper/sufficient level of oversight.