From

Obama Closes Doors on Openness

Critics say the president has left a huge loophole for himself on the issue of transparency

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.”

The hard line appears to be no accident. After Obama’s much-publicized Jan. 21 “transparency” memo, administration lawyers crafted a key directive implementing the new policy that contained a major loophole, according to FOIA experts. The directive, signed by Attorney General Eric Holder, instructed federal agencies to adopt a “presumption” of disclosure for FOIA requests. This reversal of Bush policy was intended to restore a standard set by President Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno. But in a little-noticed passage, the Holder memo also said the new standard applies “if practicable” for cases involving “pending litigation.” Dan Metcalfe, the former longtime chief of FOIA policy at Justice, says the passage and other “lawyerly hedges” means the Holder memo is now “astonishingly weaker” than the Reno policy. (The visitor-log request falls in this category because of a pending Bush-era lawsuit for such records.)

It’s becoming increasingly hard for the left to deny the NeoCon label being ascribed to President Barack Obama

Who needs the 1st Amendment when you have Hope’n'Change instead?

A new White House policy on permissible lobbying on economic recovery and stimulus project has taken a decidedly anti-First Amendment turn. It’s a classic illustration of Big Government trying to control every aspect of a particular activity and in the process running up against civil liberty.

Check out this passage from a post on the White House blog by Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President on Ethics and Government Reform (emphasis added):

“First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

Ah, the incredibly elastic concept of “unique circumstances” being used to justify the stifling of free speech.

Politics, Chicago-deep-dish style.

Or, put differently, “How dare you petition the government!”

Thanks a flipping ton, 52%.

X-Posted at The Vent-O-Matic.

The Obama administration keeps telling me that transparency is this administrations main priority but in the case of judge Sotomayor’s Duke University video and the spin by the White House that the judge was taken out of context (standard operating procedure when the left is caught with their pants down) one must stand up and shout… Obama, Dude Where’s My Transparency?

Yesterday when asked about the following video White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said “We can all move past YouTube snippets and half sentences and actually look at the honest-to-God record” intimating that these objections were erroneous due to the fact that the statement was taken out of context.

So the challenge as been brought’n Mr. Gibbs lets see if this administration has the cojones to man-up and stick to their promise… if not I’m sure I’m not the only one who will be screaming — Dude Where’s My Transparency?

President Obama Promised “Sunlight Before Signing” bills in an attemp to provide more tranparncy and  openness… I Guess 1 out of the first 11 bills signed or 10%  is close enough for government work?

CATO, in the link above, has examed what they call “The Promise that keeps on breaking”

President Obama promised on the campaign trail that he would have the most transparent administration in history. As part of this commitment, he said that the public would have five days to look online and find out what was in the bills that came to his desk before he signed them. It was his first broken promise, and it’s the promise that keeps on breaking. He has now signed 11 bills into law and gone, at best, 1 for 11 on his five-day posting promise. The Obama administration should deliver on the Web-enabled transparency he promised and post bills for five days before signing.

To the thrill of technology and transparency advocates, candidate Obama promised sunlight before signing: “As president,” his campaign website said, “Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”

But nine days after taking office, he signed a bill into law without posting it on Whitehouse.gov for five days. Since then, 10 more bills have become law over the president’s signature, and only one has been posted online for five days — and that was for five days after it cleared Congress, not after formal presentment. Two bills have been held by the White House for five days before signing — but they weren’t posted online!

It is easy to dismiss the five-day promise as an idea that would not have changed much anyway. Bills coming out of Congress are faits accomplis, aren’t they? They are not.

Members of Congress are highly skilled political risk balancers, and the president’s firm insistence on leaving bills sitting out there, unsigned, after they pass Congress would have a significant effect on congressional behavior. It would threaten to reveal excesses in parochial amendments and earmarks, which could bring down otherwise good bills. Recognizing the negative attention they could draw to themselves, representatives and senators would act with more circumspection, and last-minute add-ons to big bills would recede. A firm five-day rule at the White House would also inspire the House and Senate to implement more transparent and careful processes themselves.

Whitehouse.gov has seen some bills posted, and some have been posted before the president signed them, but a few things have to happen for the president’s promise to see real fulfillment.