Support all your favorite nonprofits with a single donation.

Donate safely, anonymously & monthly, in any amount. It's a smarter way to give online. Learn more
Sunlight Foundation
Washington, DC

The Sunlight Foundation uses technology and ideas to make government transparent and accountable.

The Sunlight Foundation is:

A think-tank that develops and encourages new policies inside the government to make it more open and transparent.
A campaign to engage citizens in demanding the policies that will open government and hold their elected officials accountable for being transparent.
An investigative organization that uses the data we uncover to demonstrate why we need new policies that free government data.
A grant-giving institution that provides resources to organizations using technology to further our mission and create community
An open source technology community that revolves around the Sunlight Foundation’s core mission

Sunlight Foundation is not verified as a 501(c)3 organization.

Latest News

Oct 21, 2014

Paul Ryan speaking at CPAC in 2013
Paul Ryan's leadership PAC spent heavily on consultants and contributions to other members last quarter; Image credit: Gage Skidmore/Flickr

In the months leading up the Nov. 4 elections, members of congress are furiously raising money for their own re-election contests, on top of their full-time gigs as legislator. So why would Wisconsin GOP Rep. Paul Ryan go the extra yard of raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for other members? While partisan camaraderie and goodwill may play, it's likely that Ryan's play for the Ways and Means Committee's chairmanship has something to do with it. In the midst of a midterm election's waning days, Ryan — and others with leadership or even White House ambitions — have been doling out serious cash in direct contributions and fundraising expenses to help out their fellow members.

A leadership PAC is different from a congressman's campaign committee — it's the campaign vehicle used to fundraise and donate to other members. Ryan's leadership PAC, Prosperity Action Inc., has spent more than any other leadership committee from July through September at over $860,000 — including $300,000 in direct contributions to candidate committees, state parties and Republican joint fundraisers. The bulk of that cash, however, went to "operating expenditures," an elastic catch-all for other kinds of spending.

The rest of the list reads like a who's who of congressional power players, both those who already rank highly among party leadership: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Fla., as well as several whose names frequently come up in discussions of 2016 contenders, such as Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky. — number two on our list — and Marco Rubio, R-Fla. The list underscores just how important raising money is in Washington.

A closer look at the campaigns' financial reports highlights the different ways in which a member can leverage the power of the super PAC.

For Ryan, it appears his leadership committee is tackling the task of testing the 2016 waters. Prosperity Action's major investments include web development, media consulting, online advertising and copies of Ryan's book (royalty excluded) for campaign donors.

Likewise for Rand Paul's Reinventing A New Direction PAC (RAND PAC), which devoted around $66,000 to telemarketing consulting and $30,000 to website

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's MC PAC, meanwhile, spends more like a vehicle for fêting other members, a key component of McCarthy's new role. MC PAC's most expensive disbursements over the past three months include chartered airfare, lodging, catering and the services of fundraising consultants.

An invitation from the Political Party Time archive for a fundraiser in May of last year asked for contributions of up to $42,000 at a joint party in Costa Mesa, Calif. for the Majority Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee.

One name we didn't expect to see on this list is McCarthy's predecessor as Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, who has moved on to greener pastures since being blindsided in Virginia's 7th District Republican primary by college professor Dave Brat.

ERIC PAC's spending has slowed down considerably since Cantor left office to join investment firm Moelis & Co., but fundraising -- in the form of transfers from joint fundraising committees that the ex-Majority Leader benefitted from -- has stayed strong. Cantor's leadership PAC raised just shy of $120,000 in the first two weeks of October, and had $568,000 in the bank on Oct. 15. In contrast, Cantor's candidate committee had less than $50,000 on Sept. 30, when it last filed. Leadership PAC money can be retained by members after they retire; one possibility is that Cantor will use his PAC to continue winning friends and influencing people on Capitol Hill.

Some former members who reenter the private sector dissolve their leadership PACs and transfer the funds to charities or other campaigns. While others keep their old leadership committees alive years after leaving congress.

Former Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., for example, raised and spent leadership PAC money after starting a new career as a registered lobbyist. As Eric Lipton of the New York Times reported in 2010, many of the recipients of Lott's leadership PAC contributions were on committees with jurisdiction over Lott's clients.

For members who want to advance their careers on and off the Hill, a leadership PAC certainly doesn't hurt.

Oct 21, 2014

Keyboard delete key
Photo Credit: Flickr User Mixy Lorenzo

Our legally-protected access to public email records — the most voluminous source of official written records — is failing.

Despite the fact that data storage costs have continued to decrease over time, evidence exists that state and local governments are increasingly implementing policies which reduce their obligations to keep emails as public records. Some of the more visible recent examples of this include Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration's recently-revealed determination that all state employee emails which were not specifically saved would be deleted after 90 days; a binding decision from a California Court of Appeals that public officials’ emails, if written on private devices, do not constitute public records; and the Los Angeles Unified School District moving to increase the rigor of their email destruction policy only after older emails revealed the closeness of officials’ relationships with potential district vendors. Some states, meanwhile, still have yet to declare an official policy designating emails as public records. There is no guaranteed right to access records of public business conducted over email in those states.

The fact that state and local email retention policies are typically developed in-house and without much fanfare has led people — most often journalists — to discover only after the fact that these records are not being kept. Email retention policies in cities routinely allow destruction of email records after 90 days. With email becoming the primary form of written governmental communication, this erosion of access to our collective public records is an unacceptable and avoidable course of events.

Luckily, while many state and local governments struggle to articulate or successfully implement clear policies to reliably retain important electronic public records, the federal government is moving toward a better standard. The National Archive and Records Administration (NARA) has provided some useful guidance in response to the problem of how to move public records archiving into the 21st Century.

Both in the federal government and in state and local governments across the nation, the most common method presently used to archive electronic records allows public employees to decide which individual emails they would identify as “public records.” Other observers of government IT have noted that this approach to email retention practically works against the robust protection of public records:

A major obstacle to the adoption of the ‘user driven’ email records approach, no matter how well-integrated the solution, has been the cultural hurdle for users at any level to ... independently decide that an email qualifies as a record, and to then perform the extra work to properly classify an email record against the agency’s records schedule.

While public employees appear generally to receive guiding criteria for which emails constitute public records, it is unclear how effective those guidelines are, particularly across smaller jurisdictions. Similarly, we’ve yet to see evidence that individual deletion practices are regularly audited. This approach is time consuming and, without adequate oversight, introduces substantial subjectivity (and potentially self-serving behavior) into the question of what constitutes a “public record.”

Current email archiving practices are hampered by other inefficiencies as well. In some cases, public employees who identify their emails as public records are then mandated to print them out for subsequent paper filing. When printing every maintained email is required, the government misses out on the public cost-saving benefits of email as an electronic record.

In response to the problem of how to effectively mandate the maintenance of important public records transmitted by email, NARA has moved ahead by recommending federal agencies adopt a “Capstone” approach to email archiving. Under the Capstone model, agencies identify a set of employees whose email inboxes are likely to contain records relating to the agency’s most significant decision-making. These people include both agency heads and their immediate deputies, as well as the heads of individual programs. Then, all of these employees’ messages are automatically archived and kept as permanent records. If employees want to cull individual emails as being personal messages, spam or otherwise transitory and truly unimportant material, they may do so — but the presumption lies with preserving, rather than deleting, the bulk of these individuals’ emails.

NARA is now following up on their initial Capstone approach by proposing additional guidelines to require all public employees to keep all emails for three to seven. With this advance, the agency realigns the highly discretionary federal policy on email to fit our true understanding of email’s importance as a public record. Rather than viewing email as a discretionary, temporary communication, the new NARA guidelines respect email’s central role in enacting public policies. Like the paper letters and memos of the 20th Century, email is frequently now the very substance of public policy implementation.

NARA’s new email retention policy reflects a 21st Century understanding that public records do not become less vital when they exist in digital, as opposed to paper, form. The approach of keeping all public emails for a minimum of three to seven years offers critical support to the public’s right to access government records. We feel that this is an appropriate aspiration for all governmental units in the U.S.: federal, state and local.

While we understand that email and archiving systems will have to adjust to this new approach, it seems likely that the future will bring more, not less, use of digital technology for governmental communication. Without a strong commitment to keeping these electronic records public, we will have many fewer records to access in the future.

If we do not wish to see our rights to public records entirely erode, now is the time to get serious about protecting public access to official public email.

Oct 21, 2014

Tom Steyer in light blue shirt with red tie
Tom Steyer, the 55 million dollar man; Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

Environmentally-minded billionaire Tom Steyer gave another $15 million to his NextGen Climate Action in September, his outside spending group whose $20 million in campaign spending last month made it September's No. 1 spender. The donation also brings Steyer's super PAC contributions for the 2014 cycle to an eye-popping $55.9 million.

An analysis of the latest campaign filings using Sunlight's Real-Time Federal Campaign Finance tracker provides a revealing view of how the spenders we know about are positioned in the final weeks before the election. The past week has given us the opportunity to take a rare comprehensive look at the money landscape: Reports from political committees that file on a quarterly schedule were due Oct. 15, while monthly filers' latest reports were due at midnight. Sunlight is taking advantage of our Real-Time tool's analytic capacity to crunch the numbers today, and we'll be updating this post with new material.

NextGen, which is focused on electing candidates prepared to act aggressively to counter climate change, has made multi-million dollar expenditures supporting Democratic Senate candidates in Colorado, Michigan and Iowa.

In addition, the Steyer group also is funneling money to a variety of allied federal and state groups, including:

  • $5 million to NextGen's state outpost in Florida, where the group is going after incumbent Republican Gov. Rick Scott;
  • $925,000 to the League of Conservation Voters' Victory Fund, $600,000 of which was earmarked for the Michigan Senate contest;
  • $500,000 to the group's state PAC in Maine;
  • A $250,000 check to liberal veterans' group

The green super PAC is a campaign behemoth. The $16.9 million NextGen raised in September — including a $1 million check from hedge fund manager Meridee Moore, and six-figure contributions from millionaire heirs Pat Stryker ($500,000) and Sam Walton ($200,000) — was the biggest fundraising haul of any committee filing monthly or quarterly reports to the Federal Election Commission this month. Tellingly, its expenditures trumped those of the Republican National Committee over the same time period.

But individuals on the other side of the ideological divide are ponying up too. This month's FEC filings unveiled megadonations from conservative super PAC players: Among those splurging on the Freedom Partners Action Network was financial wiz Robert Mercer ($2.5 million) as well as Charles ($2 million) and David ($2 million) Koch; and Karl Rove's American Crossroads got a $2 million check from Public Storage founder Wayne Hughes, $1.25 million from hedge fund manager and gay rights activists Paul Singer and $1 million from Robert Rowling's TRT Holdings, which is behind Gold's Gym and the Omni chain of hotels.

One caveat to all this: As Sunlight has frequently observed in this space, the proliferation of political nonprofits, which are not required to disclose donors, has given rise to considerable "dark money" spending. The dark money spending we know about is now up to $105 million for 2014 — and that's not all of it. The names of the donors behind those funds are unlikely to surface.

Steyer's political largesse has drawn comparisons to the Koch brothers spending machine. Politico's Ken Vogel reported in May that the businessmen planned to raise and spend $125 million in the midterms through the donor network to Americans for Prosperity, but incomplete disclosure of political nonprofits makes it impossible to know what the duo has invested in this election cycle.

Oct 21, 2014

A newspaper with the headline Open Gov

National News

  • A bipartisan group of Senators is concerned that Congressional oversight may be lagging behind the rapidly expanding "internet of things", which is bringing up concerns about privacy, data security, and more. Several members of the Senate Commerce Committee are asking their Chairman, Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), to schedule a hearing on the topic. (The Hill)
  • Byron Dorgan, formerly a Democratic Senator from North Dakota, is helping TiVo in its quest to ensure that a specific decryption technology required in all cable boxes isn't walked back, which could hurt TiVo's business. (The Hill)
  • Open Data is making life easier for hikers and campers looking to reserve space at America's national parks, as well as making some money for the entrepreneurs who built a new reservation system using the data. But, restrictive language in a new government RFP could restrict this helpful use of data. (O'Reilly Radar)
  • It is Open Access Week and Open Knowledge is celebrating with a series of posts that highlight a variety of open access projects and activities. (Open Knowledge)
  • African nation's have, by and large, been moving steadily towards more stable democratic processes. However, opaque money in politics practices have emerged as a major challenge. (All Africa)
State and Local News
  • A judge in New Jersey has ruled that the names of police officers who are subject to internal affairs complaints as well as the names of the complainants cannot be hidden from the public under the state's open public records law. (
Events Today Later This Week Do you want to track transparency news? You can follow the progress of relevant bills, court cases, and regulations using Scout. You can also get Today in #OpenGov sent directly to your preferred news reader. If you would like suggest an event, please email by 7 am on the Monday prior to the event. 

Oct 20, 2014

Keep reading for today's look at #OpenGov news, events, and analysis including plenty of IG news, owning big data, and judicial elections. 

A newspaper with the headline Open Gov

National News

  • The Inspector General for the Department of the Interior runs an active shop, but doesn't publicly release very many of its reports. Out of 475 closed investigations last year, only three public reports were released. (EE News)
  • The Department of Energy's IG, one of the longest tenured in the Federal government, sat down with the Washington Post to talk about his process. (Washington Post)
  • Billionares like Tom Steyer and the Koch brother's are taking advantage of lax campaign finance laws to set up their own, party like structures to influence elections and policy. (New York Times)
  • A surprise inspection targeted the General Services Administration's move towards open and flexible office layouts. The agency's IG found that procedures to secure sensitive and confidential documents and property have not been adequately followed. (Government Executive)
  • Big data and in the "internet of things" will not be able to fulfill its potential without clear rules about who owns and controls data. An MIT professor has proposed a "New Deal on Data" to address this issue. (Harvard Business Review)
State and Local News
  • Court elections in varying states are turning judges into partisan political warriors fueled by big money.  (National Journal)
Events This Week Do you want to track transparency news? You can follow the progress of relevant bills, court cases, and regulations using Scout. You can also get Today in #OpenGov sent directly to your preferred news reader. If you would like suggest an event, please email by 7 am on the Monday prior to the event. 

Oct 20, 2014

Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill.,  with glasses and black suit on blue background
Over 90 percent of the money raised by Rep. Bobby Rush's campaign this election came from PACs.

As anyone who has signed up for a campaign or political party's email updates knows, the pleas to pony up some cash fill the inbox this time of year. While those requests for $3, $5 or $10 contributions can add up for some candidates, for many of them — particularly long-serving incumbents with fairly safe seats — the fundraising trail doesn't lead to individuals, but special interests in the form of political action committees. Sunlight took a look at which candidates lean the heaviest on traditional PACs to fill up their war chests.

Long before super PACs, normal, garden variety PACs drew the attention of critics and reformers. "PACs give to incumbents," former Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., said on the Senate floor in 1989, "because access to an officeholder is more important than a member's party, ideology or even voting record." Even in the days of multimillion-dollar contributors like Tom Steyer and Sheldon Adelson, PACs are still workhorses of the Washington fundraising machinery: They've spent $1.1 billion this cycle according Real-Time's latest tally, almost twice of the total spent by super PACs.

The 10 House candidates most reliant on PAC dollars are all incumbents in safe districts. Seven of the 10 are Democrats, all of whom hail from urban districts.

At the top of the leader board is the campaign to re-elect Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., which received more than 92 percent of its $300,000 in receipts from political action committees, including maximum contributions ($10,000) from the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Exelon and CSX Corp.

The PAC support continues even as Rush is the subject of an ongoing Ethics Committee probe stemming from the reporting into the ties between the Citizens for Rush campaign, a church he founded and the direction of a $1 million grant in 2000 for a community technology center. The Ethics Committee has until Nov. 10 to announce its course of action.

A voicemail left at Rush's campaign office was not returned.

Senate campaigns are not included in the table above because they file their FEC reports on paper. Those figures won't be available electronically for several more days.

Relying heavily on PACs for campaign contributions is not limited to these ten by any means. A Sunlight analysis of fundraising numbers finds 201 House members this cycle whose campaigns have received more than half of their contributions from PACs, including members of House leadership like Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.

The rubber chicken circuit

PACs make political contributions for a variety of reasons but one of the most important is access. It's no secret that members spend a sizable chunk of their time in the District fundraising and often times it's representatives from business PACs or lobbyists that are doing the hosting and helping to scare up funds.

Invitations, like the one below for a $500-and-up "Small, Convivial Dinner" benefiting Rep. David Scott, D-Ga., will often list the members committee assignments as a reference for interested parties.

A Small, Convivial Dinner by Sunlight Foundation

In addition to writing a check to a congressman's campaign, well-connected Washington PACs may go a step further, rallying funds from others in their social network — called bundling — in order to bring in more than the $10,000 contribution cap allows. That's exactly what the political action committee of the National Association of Realtors did for Scott last year, according to disclosures from his campaign. The Chicago-based trade association bundled over $22,000 for the Georgia congressman, who sits on the Financial Services subcommittee that oversees government mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

While the chance to rub shoulders with a policymaker over a beverage or frankfurter is no doubt enticing, groups that contribute $1,000 or more for a few minutes of face time may be expecting something more in return.

Come Nov. 5, there will be a lot of congressmen with IOU's.

Oct 17, 2014

A deleted photo from the account of Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and archived on Politwoops.
Deletion via Politwoops.

In this week's roundup of notable deleted tweets from U.S. politicians archived by Politwoops, we'll look at a couple musically inclined deletions, an accidentally shared b-roll ad, a rash of old campaign tweets that tried to be scrubbed and more.

We start with a deletion from the campaign account for Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., that said "Alan Simpson Band playing My Old Kentucky Home" with the image seen to the right. The deletion was removed after eight minutes and appears to be taken in the midst of a fundraiser called "Rand Paul's Barnburner & BBQ" for the Rand Paul Victory Committee. His account did not return multiple attempts for comment and, as always, we'll update this post if we hear back.

Another musical tweet that ended up in Politwoops was from the campaign account of Brian Nestande, a California state Assemblyman and Republican candidate for Congress. His account tweeted, "#NowPlaying The Doors on #Spotify …come on baby light my fire!" and then removed it an hour later. Curiously, another tweet from the same time saying "#NowPlaying Gypsy Kings on #Spotify" was not deleted.

In hushed Politwoops news this week, David Ige, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Hawaii, deleted a tweet after four hours that said "Meet David Ige" with a link to silent video montage of campaign ad b-roll embedded to the left. This video is likely being made available so that outside groups can utilize footage for "uncoordinated" campaign ads and Politwoops caught North Carolina Senate candidate in Thom Tillis doing this back in February. Ige did not return a request for comment.

On Wednesday, the campaign account of Rep. Vance McAllister, R-La., deleted 38 tweets that were nearly a year old. Later that same day the campaign account of Rep. Lacy Clay, D-Mo., removed 26 old tweets. It's unclear why either politician did this as the messages don't appear to share a common theme and it's hardly the first time that Politwoops is thrust into the position as a campaign archive. Previous mass deletions from campaign accounts include when Rep. Randy Weber, R-Texas, deleted 95 tweets, when Rep. Robin Kelly, D-Ill., deleted 108 tweets and, of course, when Elizabeth Colbert Busch, a failed Democratic congressional candidate in South Carolina deleted more than 500 tweets.

Other deletions of note this week include two from Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., that were sent during her debate with her opponent Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-La., that said Cassidy "has voted for 97% of the laws President Obama has passed in this Congress." Thomas Ravenel, a Senate challenger in South Carolina, deleted a tweet about his opponent, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that said "@GrahamBlog Graham is so afraid to debate me. We all know he's a chicken little but why be so transparent about your cowardice?" His account did not respond to a request for comment.

Enjoy your weekend and please shoot us an email if you find that Politwoops is missing any Twitter accounts!

Oct 17, 2014

 An image of Kristin Greer Love, Director of Strategy and Development for Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc
Kristin Greer Love, Director of Strategy and Development for Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc. Image credit: The Center for Migrant Rights

Migrants and advocates are organizing online to make government information transparent in order to protect workers' rights.

This month, with the generous support of the Sunlight Foundation and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc. (CDM), a transnational migrant rights organization, is launching a new organizing and transparency hub — Contratados puts unpublished government information online in an interactive map, where it becomes a powerful tool for workers to protect their rights.

Migrants are using this valuable information — obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests to the Departments of Labor, Homeland Security and State — to make important decisions about whether to migrate. The information on the Contratados site includes the names, locations and industries of U.S. businesses that employ internationally recruited workers. It also includes information about government investigations and lawsuits against businesses that have violated workers' rights.

Migrants and advocates using the site can add their own Yelp-style reviews of U.S. businesses and the labor recruiters working for those businesses. They can see links between U.S. businesses and recruiters in Mexico — relationships that they never would have seen before. That helps make the labor supply chains of businesses transparent. And transparency, in turn, helps workers decide which businesses — and which recruiters — to trust.

The U.S. government does not publish a real-time registry of businesses or recruiters participating in the temporary visa programs. That puts migrants in a difficult position: If a recruiter in Mexico offers a job in the United States, it is difficult to know whether to trust the recruiter's promises.

Contratados is filling that information vacuum. It gives workers exactly the kind of information that Martín Dávila, a migrant community leader in Mexico, would have wanted before he went to work in the United States.

An image of Contratados website Image credit: The Center for Migrant Rights

In 2007, Dávila, a construction worker who was then in his late forties, was recruited to work on an H-2B temporary work visa in a traveling carnival. In Zacatecas, Dávila was made to pay a substantial recruitment fee — more than $350, an amount that would take weeks to repay from the wages that he would eventually earn. When he decided to pay the fee, he was taking a risk. He had no way of knowing whether the recruiter's promises were real, or whether the job offer or carnival business even existed.

When he arrived in the United States, the job turned out to be real. But the working conditions at Dreamland Amusements were far from what the recruiter in Zacatecas had promised. The carnival tried to force Dávila and his coworkers to hand over their visas and passports. Some of his coworkers gave up their identity documents, fearing that if they did not, they would be fired. Dávila refused.

The pay was illegally low. Dávila and his coworkers were paid a flat weekly wage no matter how many hours they worked. Dávila feared for his and his coworkers' safety.

The work at Dreamland was dangerous: Sometimes Dávila and his coworkers would work for a full 36 hours without a break to sleep and they received no training.

Eventually, Dávila and his coworker, leaders of what was then the newly formed Migrant Defense Committee (a migrant leadership initiative that CDM supports), had reached a breaking point. They were exhausted and were earning a wage that amounted to less than four dollars per hour. Dávila and another committee leader organized their coworkers to stop working. They left their jobs and returned to Mexico.

With CDM's support in Mexico, they connected with a legal services provider in New York and then with the New York Attorney General's office (NYAG). Dávila and his fellow Migrant Defense Committee leader participated in an investigation by NYAG, leading to a major settlement victory for Dávila and his coworkers.

As we developed Contratados, Dávila organized other migrants in Zacatecas to co-design the site. With their suggestions and vision, Contratados is now a powerful tool for migrants to use and prevent abuse. Migrants deciding whether to take a job can now see government information in a visual, useful way. They can read information about employers' and recruiters' practices, so that that they can avoid working with businesses that have a history of rights violations.

The way migrants like Dávila are recruited reveals a lot about the future of work for all of us. Migrant and U.S. workers are increasingly taking on contingent work, temporary jobs that they do not expect to keep. In the new economy, workers are navigating opaque labor supply chains, involving complicated webs of transnational staffing agencies and recruiters.

This year, more than 800,000 migrants — roughly the population of San Francisco — will be recruited internationally to work in the United States under temporary visa programs. Internationally recruited workers teach in public schools, run carnival rides, pick crab meat, care for children and cut grass. And in the United States, as of 2005 — the last time that the U.S. Department of Labor published information on contingent and alternative working arrangements — up to 14.8 percent of U.S. workers were in contingent and alternative jobs.

We see Contratados as a crucial tool that makes government information transparent and useful for workers, a valuable transparency resource for the future of work. In the future, we hope to build Contratados into a platform that other recruited and contingent workers can use. We would invite your feedback and suggestions. Please get in touch with us at

Kristin Greer Love is an attorney and the Director of Strategy and Development for Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc. — The Center for Migrant Rights, a transnational migrant rights organization. Kristin is a graduate of the University of Chicago and the University of Chicago Law School.

Interested in writing a guest blog for Sunlight? Email us at