generic propecia
March 17, 2010 by
Filed under
I’m currently in the middle of requesting lobbying information from all , including membership and dues information for . I wrote yesterday about the , and I’m hoping that this next step of getting counties’ information will help clear up that fog—add some sunshine, if you will.
As I told some of the county officials I spoke with, this isn’t a “gotcha!” operation. Sunshine Review believes in and we recognize that transparency is the best way to keep government accountable to its citizens. We see it more as a preventative step rather than a sting operation.
(Incidentally, one thing I didn’t mention in my blog post yesterday about the is that transparency prevents corruption, and transparency is the mark of a non-corrupt government. Regardless of what comes first, it’s good transparency comes with good things.)
As a result of the new FOIA law in Illinois , I’ve actually received most counties’ replies and am working on sorting through them. One county has actually found it “too burdensome.” I’ll hold off posting the guilty party’s name until I follow up with them and see if we can’t work something out, but generally speaking, I’ve been pleasantly surprised at how responsive and helpful Illinois county officials have been in getting me information. This is truly in the spirit of collaboration.
generic propecia
March 16, 2010 by
Filed under ,
I’ve about and how that information can be. A lot of taxpayer-funded lobbying is hidden, not reported, or not acknowledged as such.
A new research paper by the clears some of that obscurity up. focuses on California while also surveying other states and gives insight as to the general nature of taxpayer-funded lobbying. The paper looks at lobbying in California for 2007 and 2008.
One interesting thing that may be generalized to taxpayer-funded lobbying as a whole is the amount of adjustments the writers of the paper had to make in order to try and get an accurate figure for taxpayer-funded lobbying. For example, of the $30.9 million reported as spent by labor unions, $8.1 million can be properly classified as taxpayer-funded lobbying. And this pattern continues in sectors “Government”; “Public Employees”; and “Education.”
It study breaks down the amount spent on taxpayer-funded lobbying in a powerful way: one in every four dollars spent on lobbying in California was taxpayer money.
The study ends up concluding that there is a need for further research in taxpayer-funded lobbying. The authors recommend improved lobbying disclosure laws that are stricter and more transparent and making accessibility a focus of these laws. We couldn’t agree more.
generic propecia
March 3, 2010 by
Filed under
in New Jersey is concerned about its membership in a taxpayer-funded lobbying association.
are groups of similar government entities. These groups facilitate communication between like-governments, such as county-to-county, and represent the collective interests of these governments before the legislature.
The county will be to the New Jersey Association of Counties (NJAC), pending an independent audit of the agency. The county also wants cuts in pay and benefits to NJAC’s director and staff.
Dues for taxpayer-lobbying groups can range from a low hundred-dollar figure, to several tens of thousands, as the dues for NJAC. In return, organizations offer education, suggestions on adhering to state policy, and legislative updates, as well as legislative representation.
The freeholders involved in questioning the NJAC are not diminishing the importance or legitimacy of such organizations:
“NJAC is worthwhile. It gives counties a voice in Trenton. But I believe some drastic reforms are needed.’’
Freeholder boards in and counties will also withhold dues. As a result of the attention, the association has hired an auditor to scrutinize the operation and finance and personnel committees were revived.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Taxpayer-funded lobbying is an , and a lot of the are, as of yet, not worked out.
UPDATE: The from position as a result of the recent criticism.
generic propecia
February 23, 2010 by
Filed under ,
Most people expect schools to focus on education, but in South Carolina institutions of higher education, the money goes to lobbying.
A recent report has exposed taxpayer-funded lobbying in South Carolina school, with than any other public or private institution in the state at $1.7 million in the last decade. It’s easy to see how it got to that point when the school has a full-time lobbyist in D.C., a separate contract with a lobbying firm, and it pays its top lobbyist over $180,000.
Has it paid off for the university? Lobbying helped the university:
*Land a $45 million Energy Department grant for wind research in November
*$3 million in federal funding for the International Center for Automotive Research
*Get Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Energy Secretary Steven Chu to visit Clemson.
Clemson may be the biggest spender, but it is not the only one. Claflin University, a private institution in Orangeburg was the second-highest spender, spending $970,000 from 2000 to 2009. And University of South Carolina had a contract valued at more than $200,000 a year over the past five years with a lobbying firm, and currently employs two full-time state lobbyists each making more than $100,000 a year.
One criticism of taxpayer-funded lobbying is that members of Congress who represent the institutions already work to get federal funds for them. This is true for Clemson University:
*Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., successfully requested $1 million for Clemson’s veterinary institute this year
*Representatives Bob Inglis and John Spratt got $1.4 million for a Clemson cyber-institute last year.
Since it seems that lobbying isn’t necessary to a school’s financial wellness, lobbying expenditures are especially noteworthy when universities continue raising prices and tuition.
It’s unclear how this information will influence future school spending. But is obvious that, from now on, schools will have an greater sense of accountability to taxpayers: journalists have let them know that they can find out information, and citizens have let them know that want it.
generic propecia
February 10, 2010 by
Filed under
In Missouri, there’s a bill that would end the practice of taxpayer-funded lobbying. would prohibit any entity that accepts tax dollars from using that money to influence the passage or defeat of legislation.
Schoeller, R-Willard, filed the legislation last year in response to the Missouri Department of Transportation sending 20 employees to the Capitol pressure legislators to pass a primary seat belt law on taxpayer time. Legislators ultimately did not support the bill, partially because the agency’s tactics annoyed them.
The bill would not outright ban recipients of tax dollars from hiring lobbyists, but the lobbyists would be forbidden from influencing legislators to vote a certain way on a bill. “You can monitor, you can educate, but you can’t advocate,” said Schoeller. The legislation would work by penalizing any registered lobbyist who accepted tax dollars to advocate a position by barring them from lobbying for up to two years, and by fining governments from $1,000 to $5,000 for using tax dollars to pay for a lobbyist.
Lobbyist Randy Scherr said it would be virtually impossible to allow lobbyists to educate a lawmaker on an issue while forbidding them from advocating a position, noting that the distinction between “education” and “advocacy” is nonexistent. It isn’t just the lobbyists that don’t think the bill will work. , R-Dixon.”I support the concept, I really do. But I don’t think it will change much.”
The doubts are consistent with the . It is difficult and next to impossible to remove influence from the legislative process, since it can take many forms. said he doubts his bill will be included in the final product. While the cause of ending the practice does seem lofty, the proposed bill has brought taxpayer-funded lobbying to the the forefront. A start would be increased transparency in the process. For example, out of the , none of them have lobbying information on their websites. If these counties were to post their lobbying information online, such as contracts with lobbyists, membership in , and check registers for payments to these, there wouldn’t even need to be legislation protecting taxpayers from overzealous governments: taxpayers could look out after themselves.
generic propecia
January 27, 2010 by
Filed under
Yesterday, in . will raise $730 million to fill in a shortfall in the state’s 2009-2011 biennial budget for education, health care and public safety by raising personal income taxes for individuals earning more than $125,000 and increasing corporate taxes on all businesses, except sole proprietorships.
Another way Oregon may consider cutting spending is to cut some , the use of public money by a government entity to lobby another government for money. One report places the amount of money spent nationally on taxpayer-funded lobbying at $1 trillion each year.
Some local governments have come to . has recently decided to leave the Association of Oregon Counties. With dues at $31,000 a year, an inability to dictate the lobbying prioties to pursue, and rampant inefficiency, it makes sense that the county would want to step back and localize its decisions.
Here’s hoping Oregon survives the that have been lately around the country.
generic propecia
October 26, 2009 by
Filed under
For , we sent information requests to Florida school districts, asking for lobbying information. You can now find our prescription for more open government on the generic propecia: generic propecia For the whole story, click .
generic propecia
September 10, 2009 by
Filed under
The label “taxpayer-funded lobbying” means what it sounds like: government entities use public money to fund their advocacy efforts.
But sometimes, it’s more subtle.
For example, a city could become a member of the , or other taxpayer-funded lobbying associations. Throught membership in such groups, cities and other government entities receive advocacy before legislatures. These groups lobby for varying items. A few examples include:
* The Texas Association of School Boards .
* The Arizona League of Cities and Towns wants ,
* The Wisconsin Counties Association supports .
* The Florida Cities Association supports the in Florida.
This is all lobbying that is paid for by taxpayers. That’s right: you and I pay to oppose vouchers.
Another subtlety of government funded lobbying comes with legislative receptions. One way of influencing law makers is through legislative receptions. The Indian River School District, for example, hosts a .
There’s not a lot of information on taxpayer-funded lobbying out there, and there are problems with the . So join us on our quest to get more information on , or read up on .
generic propecia
September 3, 2009 by
Filed under
We’ve been busy at . During the summer months, we sent Freedom of Information requests to 27 with .
Many government entities have lobbyists on staff, and many more contract-out their lobbying needs. by state and local governments, public universities, transportation authorities, and public water utilities was in 2007. This number does not include lobbying at the state and local levels, legislative receptions and gifts, or membership in taxpayer-funded lobbying associations, such as the .
Data on those activities is , so we figured we would get the ball rolling by starting with Florida school districts. The most recent results , although we’re waiting to hear back from some stragglers, and you can also read a summary of to the FOIA requests.
To learn more about taxpayer-funded lobbying and our FOIA Back-to-School Project, click .