So Much for Obama’s Sunshine Promise

A.I. and I have argued in the past about President Obama's honesty. I think our chief executive is no worse, but certainly no better, than your average politician. Telling us what we want to hear is what we pay these guys for, and Barack Obama is earning his keep. Consider this, from the New York Times.

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised that once a bill was passed by Congress, the White House would post it online for five days before he signed it.

"When there's a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government's doing," Mr. Obama said as a candidate, telling voters he would make government more transparent and accountable.

When he took office in January, his team added that in posting nonemergency bills, it would "allow the public to review and comment" before Mr. Obama signed them.

Five months into his administration, Mr. Obama has signed two dozen bills, but he has almost never waited five days. On the recent credit card legislation, which included a controversial measure to allow guns in national parks, he waited just two.

The NYT calls this a "change in the terms of a campaign promise." Good thing they cleared that up, because I sort thought it looked like breaking a promise. I resolve in the future to change the terms of my promises more often. Well, the Administration is about to mend its ways.

Now, in a tacit acknowledgment that the campaign pledge was easier to make than to fulfill, the White House is changing its terms. Instead of starting the five-day clock when Congress passes a bill, administration officials say they intend to start it earlier and post the bills sooner.

"In order to continue providing the American people more transparency in government, once it is clear that a bill will be coming to the president's desk, the White House will post the bill online," said Nick Shapiro, a White House spokesman. "This will give the American people a greater ability to review the bill, often many more than five days before the president signs it into law."

Mr. Shapiro said the move would provide more transparency because the White House site drew so much traffic. It also stretches out the time in which a bill will be posted, making it easier for Mr. Obama to abide by the pledge.

But this is not another way of keeping his promise, it's an absurdity. While a bill is still pending in Congress it can be changed in any number of ways. The Volokh Conspiracy notes this:

The House is preparing to vote on an 1,000-plus-page bill that was subject to a 300-page amendment last night — an amendment that was not even available to many members of Congress until today. Most members of Congress have had no meaningful opportunity to read, let alone digest, the bill. The same is true for most legislative staff. Forget the public.

So posting a bill before it is passed by Congress doesn't give the public a chance to review what is actually legislated. Hundreds or thousands of pages may be added, changing everything. There are only two possible interpretations of the White House back peddling. Either they don't understand how bills become law, or they are covering up a broken promise a carpet of dishonesty. Take your pick.

TVC also notes that Obama's promise to make government more open is another one he has no intention of keeping. From Newsweek:

As a senator, Barack Obama denounced the Bush administration for holding "secret energy meetings" with oil executives at the White House. But last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama's "clean coal" policies. One reason: the disclosure of such records might impinge on privileged "presidential communications."

The refusal, approved by White House counsel Greg Craig's office, is the latest in a series of cases in which Obama officials have opted against public disclosure. Since Obama pledged on his first day in office to usher in a "new era" of openness, "nothing has changed," says David Sobel, a lawyer who litigates FOIA cases. "For a president who said he was going to bring unprecedented transparency to government, you would certainly expect more than the recycling of old Bush secrecy policies."

Now I happen to think that the Administration was quite right to reject the FOIA request. If you want people to come in and talk openly, you might have to give some of them cover. But it bears noting that this is one more case where Barack Obama's campaign rhetoric was just telling us what we want to hear. Sorry Mac, but David Sobel is right. There is not an ounce of difference between Bush and Obama on this issue.

Comments

[Elisa]

If South Dakota can be open enough to post the proposed legislation and changes that are made throughout the process, than why can't that be done at the federal level?

[KB]

Good question, Elisa. Possible answer: at the federal level, there is more scrutiny and therefore more at stake. You just can afford to be so open when whatever you are open about will be examined by an army of journalists.

[Mac]

YAWN...you never have anything good to say about our President....

[KB]

Mac: When was the last time you said anything good about George W. Bush? In fact,I do have something good to say about our President. I defended his speech on Palestine a few weeks ago.

[Miranda]

If your real reaction is a yawn, Mac, I wonder why you keep coming back.
What _is_ worthy of a yawn is Obama's politics. He ran on a slogan of change, but as many have observed: The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Mac]

YAWN...oh the defense of his Palestinian Speech...like the on thing out of a hundred bad things...whatever...zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Miranda]

Obama has champions enough, Mac. It is important to have some criticism.
If you're looking for cheerleaders, you might try Keith Olberman or The Obama Girl.

[Mac]

Actually, I like Keith Oberman...funny, funny, funny guy who is right on the money most of time! I'll have to turn into Countdown tonight for the real scoop. Thanks for reminding me...

[KB]

Mac: You said that I never say anything good about Obama. I showed that I did, at least once. In fact, I have occasionally defended the President when I thought he deserved it. I am in fact critical most of the time because I genuinely believe that his legislative agenda is a mess. Maybe I am right, and maybe not. But Presidents need critics. That's how opposition politics are supposed to work. They also need supporters. Your approach seems largely reflexive to me, and perhaps that's my bias. But it's not necessarily a bad thing. Bias on both sides adds some needed stability to the political system.

I do notice, however, that you failed to answer my question. Anyway, that's for coming to this site and commenting, even if it puts you to sleep.