Transparency

Website Investigation Conducted by the Sunlight Foundation
The official websites of Members of the United States Senate and Members of the United States House of Representatives were rated by citizen researchers in February, 2007 as part of a survey by the Sunlight Foundation. The survey evaluated members' sites on whether they provided basic information on their legislative activities, posted their legally required disclosures such as on personal finances and travel, and provided other information that furthers transparency. A perfect transparency rating would be 100%, 100 out of 100. A score of 40 was considered passing.

Crieria of Evaluation

 * 1) Does the site list or link to bills the Member has sponsored or co-sponsored? (Three hundred ninety-four (394) Member sites did.)
 * 2) Does the site name the committee(s) and subcommittee(s) on which the Member serves? (Four hundred sixty-five (465) Member sites did.)
 * 3) Are Links to the Web sites of the committee(s) on which the Member serves provided? (Three hundred sixty (360) Member sites did.)
 * 4) Are Statements or links to statements inserted into the congressional record by the Member provided? (Two hundred fifty (250) Member sites did.)
 * 5) Is there a page or email address to contact the Member electronically? (Five hundred thirty-two (532) Member sites have this.)
 * 6) Are Personal Financial Disclosures (which list the Member’s assets and sources of income) provided? (No (0) Member sites did.)
 * 7) Are Member/Officer Reimbursed Travel Expense Disclosures (filed when a third party pays for a member or staffer's junket) provided? (No (0) Member sites did.)
 * 8) Are Expenses charged to the Member Representational Allowance (for Representatives) or the Official Office Expense Allowance (for Senators) provided? (No (0) Member sites did.)
 * 9) Is Information on Franked Mail, including copies of letters and cost of sending them provided? (No (0) Member sites did.)
 * 10) Is a Public Calendar with the Member's schedule, including attendees and subjects of meetings provided? (Six (6) Member sites did.
 * 11) Is a list of Earmarks sponsored by the Member provided? (Six (6) Member sites did.)
 * 12) Is information on the Member's interventions with or correspondence to Regulatory Agencies provided? (One (1) Member site s did.)

Articles and Resources
Full results of survey