Bill Allison
March 16, 2007
Bill Allison is a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation.
After two decades of restrictions— applied by successive administrations—on publicizing government information, thereby infringing on the public’s right to know and ability to hold elected officials accountable, it’s still too early to say whether the tide has finally turned. Yet, as we come to the end of Sunshine Week—an event launched by journalists but open to anyone who has an interest in open government and in encouraging more disclosure—there are encouraging signs that some in Washington have recognized that openness and transparency are the only means to reverse rapidly waning public confidence in government.
This week, the House passed four measures that, if also passed by the Senate and signed into law, will strengthen the Freedom of Information Act, provide quicker access to presidential papers, protect government whistleblowers and force foundations that raise money for presidential libraries to disclose their donors. Whether all or any will be enacted is uncertain, but all four have the potential to provide long-needed scrutiny. To cite just one example, Saudi potentates will no longer be able to anonymously bestow seven-figure donations on nonprofit presidential libraries that happen to be associated with sitting presidents.
Meanwhile, the Senate Rules Committee held a hearing to consider a rather more arcane but no less overdue measure that would require campaign committees of Senate candidates to file their contribution and expenditure information electronically with the Federal Election Commission, rather than submitting stacks—and stacks—of paper. Both House and presidential candidates file electronically; for Senate campaigns, the FEC has to enter each contribution by hand, effectively delaying disclosure of campaign cash for weeks.
Even the administration is belatedly getting in on the act. On March 12, the Office of Management and Budget released a preliminary version of its earmark database. Eventually, OMB will catalog every congressional pet project and set-aside in the federal budget.
This is not to say that we’ve suddenly arrived at a new age of transparency, when we can expect even the likes of Vice President Dick Cheney to recognize that withholding the names of the industry insiders who informed the administration’s energy task force undermines public confidence in the administration’s policies. Journalists have heard so many justifications for withholding government information from the public—from the proprietary rights of corporations to executive privilege to national security and the war on terror—that we can be forgiven if we retain our skepticism.
Consider the House and the Senate. We are 10 weeks into the 110th Congress, and we still don’t know who all the special interests were that lobbied their predecessors in the last Congress—let alone those actively working Capitol Hill now—because the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 requires such infrequent disclosures. The Senate has yet to adopt rules that would require earmarks, their beneficiaries and sponsors to be disclosed in advance of any vote; the House, which has adopted its rule, has yet to disclose a single earmark. And finally, members of Congress are required by law to reveal certain information—including personal financial disclosures and the identities of those who sponsor their junkets—to the public to deter potential conflicts of interest. While members file their forms, none post those forms online so that the public could easily access them, diminishing the ability of citizens to conduct oversight of their elected officials.
Congress has yet to require the online filing of public disclosures, an end to secret legislation and real lobbying disclosure. The effort to make its own operations more transparent has stalled.
Yet some members—ranging from newcomers like Sen. John Tester, D-Mont., and Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., to a consummate insider like Rep. John T. Doolittle, R-Calif.—have decided not to wait for Congress to change the rules. They, along with a few other members, have decided to post their daily schedules online, revealing everyone they meet with, from civic groups to lobbyists for special interests. And Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, and Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., both post lists of the earmarks they request, though no law requires them to do so, doing what is in their power to do to bring some sunlight to the appropriations process.
Because of the efforts of individual members of Congress, legislation to force new disclosures and restore access to previously available information, and, of course, public vigilance and vigorous reporting by the press, we can hope to reverse the trend toward secrecy. We have to remember, though, that this will be an ongoing process, not an event.
© 2007 TomPaine.com ( A Project of The Institute for America's Future ) | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | About Us |
March 16, 2007
Bill Allison is a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation.
After two decades of restrictions— applied by successive administrations—on publicizing government information, thereby infringing on the public’s right to know and ability to hold elected officials accountable, it’s still too early to say whether the tide has finally turned. Yet, as we come to the end of Sunshine Week—an event launched by journalists but open to anyone who has an interest in open government and in encouraging more disclosure—there are encouraging signs that some in Washington have recognized that openness and transparency are the only means to reverse rapidly waning public confidence in government.
This week, the House passed four measures that, if also passed by the Senate and signed into law, will strengthen the Freedom of Information Act, provide quicker access to presidential papers, protect government whistleblowers and force foundations that raise money for presidential libraries to disclose their donors. Whether all or any will be enacted is uncertain, but all four have the potential to provide long-needed scrutiny. To cite just one example, Saudi potentates will no longer be able to anonymously bestow seven-figure donations on nonprofit presidential libraries that happen to be associated with sitting presidents.
Meanwhile, the Senate Rules Committee held a hearing to consider a rather more arcane but no less overdue measure that would require campaign committees of Senate candidates to file their contribution and expenditure information electronically with the Federal Election Commission, rather than submitting stacks—and stacks—of paper. Both House and presidential candidates file electronically; for Senate campaigns, the FEC has to enter each contribution by hand, effectively delaying disclosure of campaign cash for weeks.
Even the administration is belatedly getting in on the act. On March 12, the Office of Management and Budget released a preliminary version of its earmark database. Eventually, OMB will catalog every congressional pet project and set-aside in the federal budget.
This is not to say that we’ve suddenly arrived at a new age of transparency, when we can expect even the likes of Vice President Dick Cheney to recognize that withholding the names of the industry insiders who informed the administration’s energy task force undermines public confidence in the administration’s policies. Journalists have heard so many justifications for withholding government information from the public—from the proprietary rights of corporations to executive privilege to national security and the war on terror—that we can be forgiven if we retain our skepticism.
Consider the House and the Senate. We are 10 weeks into the 110th Congress, and we still don’t know who all the special interests were that lobbied their predecessors in the last Congress—let alone those actively working Capitol Hill now—because the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 requires such infrequent disclosures. The Senate has yet to adopt rules that would require earmarks, their beneficiaries and sponsors to be disclosed in advance of any vote; the House, which has adopted its rule, has yet to disclose a single earmark. And finally, members of Congress are required by law to reveal certain information—including personal financial disclosures and the identities of those who sponsor their junkets—to the public to deter potential conflicts of interest. While members file their forms, none post those forms online so that the public could easily access them, diminishing the ability of citizens to conduct oversight of their elected officials.
Congress has yet to require the online filing of public disclosures, an end to secret legislation and real lobbying disclosure. The effort to make its own operations more transparent has stalled.
Yet some members—ranging from newcomers like Sen. John Tester, D-Mont., and Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., to a consummate insider like Rep. John T. Doolittle, R-Calif.—have decided not to wait for Congress to change the rules. They, along with a few other members, have decided to post their daily schedules online, revealing everyone they meet with, from civic groups to lobbyists for special interests. And Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, and Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., both post lists of the earmarks they request, though no law requires them to do so, doing what is in their power to do to bring some sunlight to the appropriations process.
Because of the efforts of individual members of Congress, legislation to force new disclosures and restore access to previously available information, and, of course, public vigilance and vigorous reporting by the press, we can hope to reverse the trend toward secrecy. We have to remember, though, that this will be an ongoing process, not an event.
© 2007 TomPaine.com ( A Project of The Institute for America's Future ) | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | About Us |
No comments:
Post a Comment