Transparent Government: NY
SeeThroughNY is a site run by right wing think tank Manhattan institute. It scrapes publicly available data to show the salaries and pensions of just about everyone in NYS who is on the public payroll, from the Governor to cops & firemen to your local teachers:
SeeThroughNY: A place for taxpayers to download, share, analyze and compare data on public payrolls, expenditures, contracts and taxes.
This is the sort of public information that should be available to taxpayers — and voters — at every level of government, from the US Federal Government to the smallest local town.
And, that should include campaign contributions. Everyone who buys a congressman donates to any campaign should have that information disclosed on the web. That includes corporations; No one should not be able to hide behind nonprofit 501(c)(4) organizations to anonymously push their own corporate agenda.
Somehow, the Supreme Court has gotten this totally ass backwards. The rule is “One man, one vote” — not one Dollar, one vote. That the court has gotten this so wrong is a national embarrassment.
>
~~~
Invictus discusses the impact of this on state employee pension plans here: Transparent Government: Part II
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
October 13th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
This is awesome! I wish they would opensource the infrastructure so that it can be rolled out to other muncipalities.
October 13th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Again a comment about corporate contributions. Fine. But what about union contributions, especially, but not limited to, the National Education Association–fighting vouchers, charter schools, merit pay for teachers and anything else that might favor pupils over teachers and their unions. Obama is against DC school vouchers–he knows his sources of contributions. For him unions trump working class African Americans who seek good schools for their kids but can’t join afford to join the Obama daughters at Sidwell Friends.
October 13th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Nice – We have something similar in CA since the Bell fiasco.
October 13th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Postal,
The host of the blog said, “Everyone who… should have that information disclosed on the web.”
And School vouchers!? Why do I want my tax dollars going to pay for some else’s kid to go to some crack pot religious madrassa? …or possibly worse, home schooled.
You knee jerk righties don’t even read the posts before cut and pasting your prepackaged nonsense. …Not reading? A symptom of your home schooling?
October 13th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Wow, 13,000+ teachers makes between $90,000 and $110,00
~~~
BR: Yes — but out of how many teachers in the state ? What is the median income ? The teachers in that salary range, how much teaching experience, expertise, and seniority do they have?
Its always misleading (and occasionally) dangerous to take a data point out of context.
October 13th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
VD,
You think inner-city public schools do a great job and you want to preserve their near-monopoly? Ok, we disagree on that one. Check out HS drop-out rates.
First word on my post is”again”. Corp contributions mentioned a lot on this blog, union contributions never. Need a little balance.
You think DC inner city blacks supporting vouchers are right-wing crazies? I guess we disagree on that one, too.
Helpful hint: read before spouting.
October 13th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Postman:
Why would you think corporations have –or should have — the right to make anonymous donations to political campaigns ?
October 13th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
BR: I don’ t think corporations should have the right to make anonymous donations. I never opined on that point at all.
My point was that I’d like to see some criticism of unions as well as of corporations on this blog. Both (sometimes, not always) use contributions for unseemly political ends. My union example was the National Education Association. Why them? Because of their unfortunate negative effect on public education and therefore on human capital formation and subsequent productivity of our youth.
October 13th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Yes. If we’re going to be bailing out the states, Federal taxpayers have a right to know who is getting what. Instead of merely being told that we have to “invest” in “education”, lets see exactly what the pensions (and health care plans) are of those teachers that we’re bailing out.
That would be very “educational” in and of itself.
October 13th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Postman,
Mr. Ritholtz does seem far less willing to discuss the influence of unions and trial lawyers on politicians, than he is to discuss the influence of corporations on politicians.
Focusing on just one and not the other does produce a misleading picture.
October 13th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
I’m conflicted on the issue – on the one hand I hate the strangle-like influence of big corporations and unions on politicians… yet I think the philosophical/legal grounds of restricting spending to support candidates is iffy. I see it a corporations as no better PAC groups and their attack ads funded by select wealthy individuals – at least corporations have more stakeholders (that miiight be a stretch).
anyway Opensecrets.org is a great site that lets you track contributions to politicians, lobbying, and PAC spending
October 13th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
*I see corporations as no better than PAC groups and their attack ads that are funded by a select group of wealthy individuals
October 13th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
postman is exercising the typical right wing response when they’re caught out: CHANGE THE SUBJECT!!
The topic of this thread is transparency and how corporations are hiding their massive monetary influence over the electoral process.
While it is true that unions are making campaign contributions, those contributions are fully transparent.
Corporate contributions are not fully transparent. This is why the US Chamber of Commerce is now able to use foreign money to influence US elections.
October 13th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
wow BR- some of the folks on your threads latley- fire breathing partisans (of course VD is an old hand)
fact check from ABC news:
Yet while Obama is trying to tie Republicans and some of their backers to the specter of foreign interference in U.S. elections, an examination of the evidence provides little support for the claims.
in any event- I agree with you- corporations do have too much clout all derived from having the biggest coffers-
I think the Supremes should revisit that ruling
October 13th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
ahab,,its that season….the political season.
while lots can complain about unions. and maybe there should be more disclosure. but so far there is more than what we get from corporate contributions.
after there is a law that unions have to account for every $5000 disbursement, and contribution. and i suppose we could have them account for every disbursement. and contribution
but so far
we have no transparency for corporate contributions. the only place it might show up is the SEC if they are a public company. no place if they ain’t
October 13th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Ahab, Murdock via fox gave the republican party 1 million and he has most of the potential republican presidential candidates on the Fox news payroll. Australian citizen
October 13th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
I wouldn’t necessary believe ABC News as being determinative – have you seen any ThinkProgress folks on ABC being given the opportunity to discuss their side of the report where they make the charge?
The simple fact is that the Chamber of Commerce is funding a multi-million dollar political campaign in support of Republicans against the Democratic Party. They are funding this out of their 501(c)(6) entity. The problem lies in that they are soliciting funds for the 501(c)(6) from both domestic and foreign companies – which comes very close to breaking laws regarding foreign campaign financing in Amercan politics. The Chamber of Commerce is not being transparent at all (there’s that word again) about systems that it claims to have in place that keeps the money from domestic and foreign sources segregated – we’re just supposed to trust it. Meanwhile, lets pretend that we’ve never heard conservative arguments in abortion funding cases where money is “fungible” and therefore any organization that has anything to do with abortion in the slightest should be denied any and all funding less some of it be used in connection to abortion – in this case we’re just supposed to take the Chamber’s word for it and trust it, even though it refuses to disclose, that in this case money isn’t in fact fungible.
But regardless, for intake purposes the Chamber only has 1 funding entity for both domestic and foreign, and it has been shown that at least 86 foreign companies have contributed close to $1 million to the Chambers 501(c)(6).
Can ABC News show that individual money specifically received from a company in India specifically went to pay for an attack ad in Indiana? No. But it money is fungible (and you can’t have it both ways – either it is or it isn’t), then it shouldn’t be too much to connect A to B when all input – both domestic and foreign – goes into A and comes out as political attack ads as B. Seriously, this is the sort of thing that transparancy should be all about. I would think any civic-minded organization would have absolutely no problem in being transparent about this. The fact that the Chamber not only refuses to be transparent, but is engaging in deception and trying to trash the opposition rather than being forthright about it says something.
October 13th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
To dougc Says:
Incorrect. Robert Murdoch has been an American citizen since 1995 in order to own television stations. Apparently he lost his Australian citizenship as a result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch#Acquiring_American_Citizenship
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=296659
October 13th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
dougc & e to t-
in tribute to ESPN-
c’mon man!
you don’t think money is funneled from all over all the time in every election from both sides?
W3-
I’m with you- I don’t disagree w/ anything you said- and as I said- I agree w/ BR on corporate donations-
wasn’t it he who said- (but I may be wrong and read it somewhere else) that they should where coporate logos like Nascar-
not a bad idea
October 13th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
where???? lol
on my last post- please read “wear” where I have “where”
(hey- I never said I was bright)
October 13th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
F0llow the money trail: from foreign interests into Republican campaigns. These are just the ones we know about, from the limited disclosure that is currently available.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a trade association that qualifies as a 501(c)(6) organization which can engage in limited political activity, lobbying, and ACCEPT DUES FROM FOREIGN MEMBERS….. ….ALL DUES GO INTO THE SAME [501(c)(6)] GENERAL ACCOUNT , which is then used to fund the Chamber’s political attack campaign.
OUTSIDE PLAYERS: in 2006, the Chamber created the “U.S.-Bahrain Business Council” (USBBC), a local office of the Chamber’s 501(c)(6) trade association t…The Chamber also operates a “U.S.-India Business Council” (USIBC) in its U.S. headquarters… Annual membership dues range from $7,500 to $15,000 or more, and the funds are funneled directly into the Chamber’s 501(c)(6) bank account. The USBIC,…generates over $200,000 a year in dues from foreign businesses. While foreign “AmChams” operate outside the Chamber’s direct sphere, they nonetheless send dues back to the U.S. … the AmCham in Egypt calls itself one of the Chamber’s “most active affiliates” and Abu Dhabi AmCham — which includes a subsidiary of the state-run Abu Dhabi National Oil Company…. The AmCham of Russia’s relationship to the U.S. Chamber is less clear because many of the dues-paying members are Russian state-run companies, like VTB Bank, and controlled by the Russian government. …And in what looks like an attempt to raise money for election from foreign nationals, the Chamber also commissioned former U.S. Ambassador to Singapore and McCain-Palin campaign aide Frank Lavin to speak before foreign Chamber affiliates to talk about the stakes for the midterm elections. If such solicitation occurred, it would be a clear violation of FECA law.
Here is a US Chamber of Commerce application to join the U.S.-Bahrain Business Council. Dues are made payable to “US Chamber of Congress” (Warning, WORD DOC)
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/USBBC_Membership_Application_Form_F-5.doc
http://pr.thinkprogress.org/2010/10/pr20101006/index.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/06/chamber-response-funding/
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/13/chamber-foreign-funded-media/
October 13th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
thanks for the correction, does he employ most of the potential republican candidates ?
October 13th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
@ahab you don’t think money is funneled from all over all the time in every election from both sides?
I think funding is being done much differently this year and in ways that haven’t been done before and that give rise to questions of transparance and its importance. I also don’t dismiss factual based accusations of improper behavior with lazy unsupported “they all do it” type assertions.
October 13th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
BR, great post.
Wow!! Giving some credit to a “right wing think tank”. Appreciate the balance for sure.
You are getting conservative in your old age!
VD: please stop bashing the home schoolers. Your insults and epithets aren’t constructive. What is your beef?
In the interest of seeking truth, statistics show they produce a well-educated product, and exceed public (and private) schooled students on national test scores. A fact by the way. And they don’t take taxpayers’ money. But still pay taxes for others to go to government schools. Sounds like they are the ones getting screwed.
Transparency is a great thing Barry! Thanks for sharing the link.
Corporations should not be able to give political money anonymously. Labor Unions and Corporations should all have the same rules. Why not?
October 13th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
lazy unsupported “they all do it” type assertions.
oh . . .I’m sorry – I didn’t realize you were a The Professor of Political Funding- as in your assertion that “I think funding is being done differently . .. ”
and – if you think it- then it MUST be true-
naive more likely- and willing to believe anything you hear if it makes you feel more safe and comfortable in your only little thoughts-
here’s some free advice- grow up
October 13th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Jon Stewart lays it out for you…..
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-12-2010/-c–spot-run-
October 13th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
The USSC in its Citizens United decision has created a new aristocracy in the corporations in this country. Corporations are to be afforded more rights than the average citizen while being charged with fewer responsibilities. The more rights the right-wing Roberts Court gives to corporations and the stronger identification as persons, the more powerful an aristocracy these corporations become. Republicans might want to claim “class war” when Democrats try to redress this problem, but it is explicitly a class war they have declared by making corporations aristocratic persons.
October 13th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Another relevant question here is that of the sort of nefarious objectives that corporations may have… or at least that Obama is trying to make us believe that corporations have.
Perhaps within the financial sector we can all agree that corporations have too much influence, and that the “little guy” has been harmed. But what about other sectors? For example, energy, pharmaceuticals, utilities, manufacturing, I.T., and telecom.
Are J6P’s being harmed by companies in these sectors to the extent that Obama would have us believe?
Yes, the primary question posed here is that of governance. But if corporate executives are really so evil, there should be lots of examples of situations (outside the financial sector) where J6P is getting hurt by all the bribes that politicians are allegedly taking.
October 13th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
DL-
do you think it’s possible (and proven) that pharma companies put products out there that are dangerous?
Sure we have the FDA- but how many times have they had to backtrack and pull drugs that were more harmful than helpful?
plenty-
so . . .the way I see it- pharma- big investment- roll the dice- and hope there aren’t too many casualties that will bankrupt your company
October 13th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Ahab @ 8:44
“do you think it’s possible (and proven) that pharma companies put products out there that are dangerous?”
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
It comes down to questions of cost versus benefit, risk versus reward. There’s no way to eliminate the risk for 100% of the human subjects. If a drug benefits 9999 out of 10000 patients, but causes an adverse reaction in one (out of the 10000 patients) should the drug be kept off the market? And if a lawsuit is filed, how much should the jury award (relative to the profits generated)…?
I think that, between the FDA and the trial lawyers, the drug companies have an incentive to do the best they can.
And with respect to the matter raised by BR, I don’t think that if the pharma companies gave less money to politicians, drugs would be any safer than they currently are.
October 14th, 2010 at 1:20 am
I support that public servant income and taxes should be public if also PRIVATE citizen income and taxes are public.
Some countries in Europe have a completely transparent tax system, not at a detailed level, but AGI and taxes paid are public information.
October 14th, 2010 at 11:09 am
My buddies made a different variation of this for the federal government at http://www.whatwepayfor.com Their goal was transparency and education about where your federal tax dollars are going, so you put in your income and see what you pay for. It doesn’t have the depth of the NY site, but it’s a great distraction.
I will see if they can add political donations tied to budget line items. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see how much in donations ag/farm interests paid to get “agriculture income stabilization”? Maybe they can add an ROI column for lobbying efforts.
October 14th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
To thinkCHUA:
Thank you for the link. It appears remarkably detailed, for example the NEA has lost funding from $250B in 2009 to $161B in 2001. This is a favourite target of the Tea Party.
Another favourite target, the Department of Education devoted $27.8B in PELL grants (needs based assistance – not a loan) in 2010 a significant part of the $62B cost of the Department. This is expected to increase to $34.9 in 2011.
The Department of Agriculture devotes $93.9B to Food and Nutrition Service (of its budget of $135.5B) of which some 99%+ is devoted to food stamps. The basic Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has grown from $59.1B in 2009, to $68.7B in 2010 and an anticipated $80.1B in 2011.
Of course these are the department budgets, the link can also be sorted in a functional manner. Fun stuff.
October 14th, 2010 at 11:39 pm
formerlawyer said:
“Thank you for the link. It appears remarkably detailed, for example the NEA has lost funding from $250B in 2009 to $161B in 2001. This is a favourite target of the Tea Party.”
I think you need to take a closer look at those numbers. The NEA only gets $161M. That is only about 0.1% of the ENTIRE Federal budget. From every dollar that you pay in taxes, about 1/10th of one penny goes to the NEA.
http://www.nea.gov/news/news09/2010-nea-budget-request.html
Don’t forget! Teabaggers also like to rail against Foreign Aid; they think it’s 10-20% of the Federal budget. But it’s really only about 1% of the ENTIRE Federal budget (see page 7 of following pdf):
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb01/ForeignAid_Feb01_rpt.pdf
October 15th, 2010 at 10:16 am
To xynz:
Sorry, typo – meant Million not Billion. Another gem, the salaries and expenses of federal prison employees has been increased from $5.6B in 2009 to $6.5B in 2011.
That is a lot of prisons on top of the already world beating prison population.