I wish I could say this is a new dance, but the hypocrisy shuffle has been around for a long time. And it's an easy dance to do. Just say one thing in public and then say something very different in private.

The Obama administration's stimulus fund offers a good example of how this works. As Washington Times reporter Jim McElhatton writes:

Sen. Christopher S. Bond regularly railed against President Obama's economic stimulus plan as irresponsible spending that would drive up the national debt. But behind the scenes, the Missouri Republican quietly sought more than $50 million from a federal agency for two projects in his state.

Mr. Bond was not alone. More than a dozen Republican lawmakers, while denouncing the stimulus to the media and their constituents, privately sent letters to just one of the federal government's many agencies seeking stimulus money for home-state pork projects.

Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director, was quoted in the Times article, and she offered this take:

"It's not illegal to talk out of both sides of your mouth, but it does seem to be a level of dishonesty troubling to the American public."

CREW made its concerns known right after the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in the Citizens United case. Now the public is making it clear that it shares our concerns that this ruling may enable corporate special interests to play a dominant role in elections.

Today's Politico reports on a poll showing that by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans oppose the court's ruling. In addition:

The poll suggests that the ruling has reinforced voters’ sense of disconnect with Washington ...

Asked if special interests have too much influence, 74 percent of respondents said yes. Asked if members of Congress are "controlled by" the groups and people who finance their political campaigns, a whopping 79 percent said yes.

Only 24 percent of the voters said ordinary citizens can still influence politicians, and just 18 percent agreed with the notion that lawmakers listen to voters more than to their financial backers.

And the public's anger at the Citizens United ruling is bipartisan. Republicans disapprove of the decision by a margin of 51-to-37 percent. Democrats oppose the ruling by an even greater margin.

No matter where they live or what party they claim to belong to, it's clear that a whole lot of Americans share the sentiments that CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan expressed right after the ruling:

"Money buys elections and the biggest corporations with the most money will own our politicians. We are moving to an age where we won’t have the senator from Arkansas or the congressman from North Carolina, but the senator from Wal-Mart and the congressman from Bank of America."

One of Florida's largest newspapers welcomes the state legislature's pursuit of ethics reform. In this recent editorial, the Sun Sentinel offers lawmakers some advice:

... the Legislature would be smart to improve the U.S. "honest services" law with a detailed Florida version rather than to copy the federal one. The federal law has served anti-corruption efforts well, but it appears headed for possible undoing by the U.S. Supreme Court for constitutionality concerns.

The newspaper says the legislature should be more than capable of writing a new ethics law that is specific enough to survive any constitutional or other legal challenges:

If the state can delineate a whole book of driving statutes that dictate everything from when to use your headlights to where to park your car, surely it can specify what warrants a range of criminal behavior for public officials, from voting on issues where there's a personal financial stake to accepting bags stuffed with cash in exchange for a vote.

In fact, those are such no-brainer acts of criminal conduct, it's almost laughable that they're not already outlawed by state statute, and it says something about a neglectful Legislature that they're not.

In today's Washington Post, former Sen. Warren Rudman (R-NH) explains why he's so disappointing at having heard several Republican leaders cheer the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case:

When I arrived in the U.S. Senate 30 years ago, I was a proud member of a Republican Party known for championing moderation in Congress, restraint in the courts and good-government reform.

In fact, the Republican tradition of campaign finance reform in which I stand dates to the trust-buster, Theodore Roosevelt.

Rudman calls the court's ruling "a rash and immoderate ruling" that "is beyond my comprehension." And the ex-senator says he's perplexed as to why such a decision would "win praise from leaders of my party."

Rudman's eloquent words remind us that campaign finance should not be a partisan issue. In the long run, the Citizens United is likely to change the electoral and political process in America in ways that will anger and dismay both rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans.

Click here to read CREW's statement on the court's disturbing decision.

Today, federal prosecutors re-indicted former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Why? Prosecutors are reportedly trying to avoid having their case against the ex-governor dismantled by an anticipated U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

In the coming weeks, many observers believe the high court may declare a law key to the original indictment to be unconstitutional. This law is often called the "honest services" fraud law. When this case was argued before the Supreme Court in December, several justices expressed concerns about the law's scope.

Last April, Blagojevich was charged with 17 counts of fraud, racketeering and other criminal activity. Reuters reports:

"The new charges ... are based on the same underlying criminal conduct," said Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, in a court filing accompanying the new grand jury indictment in Chicago.

The Illinois legislature impeached and removed Blagojevich, a Democrat, from office in January 2009, during his second term. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges and is scheduled to go on trial in Chicago in June.

Critics enjoy slamming the Washington bureaucracy for moving so slowly, but the wheels don't seem to turn any faster in South Carolina. More than two months and one week after the State Ethics Commission charged Gov. Mark Sanford with 37 ethics violations, the panel has yet to hold a single hearing on the charges.

And don't expect one soon. Herbert Hayden, the commission's executive director, told The State newspaper why hearings have not yet begun.

The commissioners all have day jobs, Hayden said, and the Sanford hearing is expected to be a long day.

"It's strictly a scheduling issue," Hayden said, "With the assumed length of the hearing, it's going to have to be a special day set aside."

However, the case could be disposed of before a hearing if Sanford and the Ethics Commission agree to a settlement.

At this rate, I'm beginning to wonder if a new governor will be elected by the time the S.C. commission completes hearings on its own charges.

If you need a reminder as to why Gov. Sanford is such an ethically disgraced official, click here, go to page 4 and read "Gov. Mark Sanford's Excellent Argentinian Adventure."

This morning's National Prayer Breakfast is winding down. Even though C-SPAN chose to telecast this event, it's encouraging that they disclosed a few critical facts about the breakfast.

Whether C-SPAN did so in response to CREW's request (made in this letter) or simply acted on its own, the network posted the name of the sponsoring organization -- the shadowy and disturbing Fellowship Foundation, also known as "The Family." At a few points, C-SPAN also posted the words "not an official government event" on the screen for TV viewers to see. Up until now, many Americans have incorrectly assumed it was a government-sponsored event.

A host of media have covered the concerns raised by CREW about the prayer breakfast, including the New York Times, CNN and The Hill newspaper.

CREW's Melanie Sloan told the Times that CREW is in no way suggesting the Fellowship should not "be allowed to hold their breakfast; of course they should. The question is: Should American officials be lending legitimacy to it, giving their imprimatur by showing up."

Click here to read CREW's letter urging President Obama and members of Congress not to attend the event.

Click here to read our letter to C-SPAN asking the network not to broadcast the Fellowship-sponsored breakfast or, at the very least, to provide proper context so the public realizes this is not an official government event.

CREW today sent a letter to C-SPAN chairman and CEO Brian Lamb, asking that his network not air tomorrow’s National Prayer Breakfast, or at least properly identify the event’s sponsor as the shadowy religious organization known as “the Fellowship” or “the Family.”

The National Prayer Breakfast is often misconstrued by the public as an official government event, a mistake reinforced by the plethora of presidential seals throughout the room, a yearly presidential address, and an organizing committee of members of Congress. In reality, the event is a recruiting and networking tool for the Family – a cult-like religious organization that has pushed an unorthodox brand of Christianity within powerful political, military and economic circles around the world for 50 years.

The Family is linked – via its infamous C Street House – to highly unethical members of Congress, including Sens. John Ensign (R-NV) and Tom Coburn (R-OK), Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC), Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS), and former Rep. “Chip” Pickering (R-MS). The organization’s members have also been behind the deplorable Ugandan anti-gay legislation calling for the death penalty for anyone convicted of having gay sex.

CREW’s executive director, Melanie Sloan, said:

“The mere fact that C-SPAN, which is dedicated to political coverage, broadcasts the breakfast contributes to the notion that it is an official government event. Viewers see images of a ballroom filled with presidential paraphernalia and high-ranking government officials, and the words ‘National Prayer Breakfast’ appearing on the bottom of their screens. By airing this, C-SPAN may be unwittingly contributing to the false perception the breakfast is government-sponsored and sanctioned. At a minimum, C-SPAN should label the event as sponsored by the Family and provide some context so viewers can fully appreciate what they are seeing: our top government leaders lending legitimacy to a shadowy, intolerant religious organization.”

Today’s letter follows a letter to the president and congressional leadership on Monday calling for a boycott of the event. Click here to read CREW’s letter to C-SPAN, click here to read CREW’s letter from Monday.

CREW's determination to acquire the documents related to the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) policy of under-diagnosing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are winning praise in the blogosphere. In the wake of the legal brief that we filed Monday, this blogger at Daily Kos writes:

"... I really enjoy the work that CREW is doing, has been doing and hopefully will continue to do in the future."

We appreciate the kudos. Now let me recap some of the key developments in this story.

The legal brief we filed on Monday followed the VA's admission that it had destroyed documents responsive to CREW’s May 2008 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

Since this issue first came to light, the VA has resisted providing documents to CREW. Most recently, the VA wrongly claimed it had produced every document it had despite the fact that it had not turned over an email by VA employee Norma Perez in which she discussed the issue. The agency informed us that it couldn't produce the Perez email because it had been destroyed in 2008 -- after we submitted our FOIA request.

Equally troubling is the news we received that all of the VA’s backup tapes were destroyed, including the one containing the Perez email. The VA told us it cannot produce any emails predating December 9, 2008.

Based on the destruction of these records, CREW has asked a court to allow us to depose VA employees who may have known exactly what the VA was doing about PTSD and the extent to which the agency refused to provide proper medical care for veterans with PTSD.

Anne Weismann, CREW’s chief counsel, made this observation:

"It is incredible that with all of the public outrage and concern over this issue, the VA took no steps to preserve important records. This smacks of a cover-up to avoid liability for a disgraceful policy that deprived our nation’s veterans of appropriate health care.

"The VA is not above the law; like all other agencies, it cannot simply destroy documents that have been requested under the FOIA just because those documents may cast the agency in a bad light."

Click here to read CREW's legal brief and related documents.

It's early in the election year, but already one gubernatorial candidate in California is calling for an investigation into an opponent's campaign tactics. Steve Poizner, a candidate for governor, has accused a top adviser to one of his GOP rivals with using threats to try to force him out of the race.

According to the Sacramento Bee, Poizner wants state and federal officials to investigate these threats, which he contends may be potentially criminal in nature. Referring to his rival's tactics, Poizner said:

"This is not an attempt to be hardball and to be aggressive, but this is an attempt to effectively manipulate the election process, the integrity of the election process, by issuing these threats behind the scenes to get me not to run."