Skip to main content

An Idea Into Action

It's time to start turning our talk into something with impact.

At 2 p.m. today, the Sunlight Foundation is launching the Public=Online campaign to put public pressure on government to be more open and transparent.


It's a completely non-partisan campaign with the first goal of making government transparency a major issue in the upcoming mid-term elections.

Ultimately, Public=Online is focused on getting government to pass the transparency laws we need - laws that put government information online in real-time where we can use it - and we're going to do that by building a demand for transparency that is so large it cannot be ignored by politicians.

We are going to ensure public officials answer to us for making government open and transparent by telling them just how important it is to us as we consider who to vote for in November.

This will only work, though, if hundreds of thousands of us make this bold statement across the country - in every city, state and congressional district.

Make this statement with us by signing the Public=Online pledge, and ask others to join us as well.

 
It is through the pledge that this campaign will build political clout strong enough to move government. When it comes to making government transparent, we need those muscles to be as big as possible.
 
In the months ahead, we will send letters to the editor and make calls to congress; we'll organize days of action around such legislation as the Public Online Information Act, and we'll ensure that our representatives Read the Bill.
 
We'll ask candidates for office questions about their positions on transparency at town halls, we'll scour earmark requests, write blog posts diving into campaign data or post video of important events.
 
There are a thousand things we can do together - many of which we don't even know yet - but first, we must come together with a powerful voice, and that's what this pledge does.
 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is conscription the prescription?

US Representative, Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is at it again. Rangel's prescription for fixing the ills we're feeling in Iraq is a draft . I have very mixed feelings about this. Conscription is conscription no matter what you choose to label it. Is that appropriate in a free country? On the flip side of this coin, I've often thought that compulsory national service would be a great idea for American kids right out of high school. It might have been a better start for me than learning to down beer at a Liberal Arts university! Two years in the service might give kids time to think about their future, learn higher levels of responsibility, and begin to take life more seriously. There are many countries who require some level of mandatory military service: Belarus, Chile, China, Croatia, Serbia, Russia, Iran, Lebanon, our neighbor Mexico, and our old buddy Germany, to name a few. Gee, now that I look at that partial list... aren't many of those countries Socialist or at battl...

As the Blog Turns...

Gee. I have found myself fascinated by the soap opera unfolding in the comments section of this blog since last night. One little mention on a controversial Democrat's blog and it's High Noon on ConservaChick! (Yes, I'm laughing while I type this.) For those of you who have no idea what's happening in the ever-expanding comments section , join the club! Here's what I know about Mark Nickolas from bits and pieces I've read on his blog, and from a local news report: Nickolas likes to sneer at Republicans and call them snide little nicknames as he provides his "Unfiltered and Candid Look at Politics, Politicians and the Media in Kentucky;" he raised a ruckus within the Democrat party here in Kentucky by filing a suit against the chairman of the party , Jerry Lundergan; and he will be appearing on the same panel with yours truly on Thursday night. That's about it. You now have the benefit of my not-so-extensive knowledge on this subject. Nickolas poste...

Pol Watchers Responds

I think it's important for anyone with a voice on the internet to present all sides of an issue. In that spirit, I am posting the response I received via email from John Stamper of the Lexington Herald-Leader to the piece I wrote about censorship on blogs: "Your post about Pol Watchers does not contain the entire thread of comments, as your blog states. If you go to the post in question , you will see that there has been no effort to eliminate comments just because they question Jonathan Miller and Mark Nickolas. Plenty of them still remain. However, as stated in my comment on Pol Watchers, we're not going to allow people to use the blog as a forum for name calling. It's that simple. Check around, it's a pretty common policy. For example, blogs at WashingtonPost.com have this policy: 'User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsi...