During his 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised the American people greater government transparency through the “sunlight before signing” initiative. Obama promised that he would 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.”
At the time I praised Obama for such decisions to enhance government transparency, and yet, some of the earliest legislation to be presented to the president was quickly signed without any recognition of this five-day period of public access. Both SCHIP and the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act were signed into law by President Obama before meeting the necessary criteria established by “sunlight before signing.” And what is most puzzling is why Obama felt compelled to pass legislation like Ledbetter without the five-day review process. It is clearly not “emergency legislation,” and it hardly ignited any backlash from Republicans or the public.
As a result, the St. Petersburg Times has referred to this as Obama’s “first broken campaign promise,” and wrote:
“We recognize that Obama has been in office just a week, but he was very clear about his plan for a five-day comment period, and we can’t see why this one needed to be rushed. It is somewhat ironic that with the same action, Obama both keeps and breaks a campaign promise.”
While these exceptions to his “sunlight before signing” pledge haven’t received much attention, the current passage of the stimulus plan has reignited the debate over Obama’s pledge for greater transparency.
More than once, Barack Obama has said that he would have “the most transparent administration in American history.” And similarly, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has stated that she would head, “the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.”
Such statements set a considerably high standard for government transparency, and yet, both the President and the Speaker of the House have been anything but transparent in the passage of the economic stimulus plan.
The Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan group dedicated to government transparency, has been adamant about giving the public at least 72 hours to review the stimulus plan before signing it into law.
Ellen Miller of Sunlight:
The Sunlight Foundation has long advocated that all legislation be posted online for at least 72 hours before final consideration. We believe that the consideration of the Stimulus Bill should not be an exception. While there is currently no formal requirement to do so, the House and Senate should each ensure that lawmakers and citizens alike have at least 72 hours of online access to the Stimulus Bill before its final consideration.
Further, because the scope and public import of this legislation demand a measured and transparent process we strongly urge President Obama to post the enrolled version of the bill on WhiteHouse.gov for five days before signing it, in accordance with his campaign promise. While access and feedback from the public after final passage is not as effective as providing online availability of legislation before final passage, it would still give the public an opportunity to make their views known to the president.
It is impossible for lawmakers to read, much less fully evaluate, any complex legislation that is hundreds of pages long in the few short hours they often have between the time they first see a bill until final consideration. Worse, citizens may not have access to legislation until after it has been voted on, too late for them to have a meaningful response to legislation that may directly affect their lives.
Online access to legislation for at least 72 hours before consideration should be universally adopted by both chambers of Congress. Legislation of such magnitude needs the scrutiny of both legislators and American citizens.
Miller makes an interesting observation, which deserves attention. While transparency is often championed for the interests of the public, government transparency is also important to the lawmakers themselves, particularly those who vote on the legislation.
The stimulus bill, which “easily cleared the House,” is currently being debated in the Senate, and is expected to be submitted to the President for a signature by Monday. And as important as the stimulus is, most lawmakers haven’t had access to the finished product.
From CNS News:
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) predicted on Thursday that none of his Senate colleagues would ”have the chance” to read the entire final version of the $790-billion stimulus bill before the bill comes up for a final vote in Congress.
“No, I don’t think anyone will have the chance to [read the entire bill],” Lautenberg told CNSNews.com.
Both Republicans and Democrats told CNSNews.com they were eager to read the unseen bill–once they could get get their hands on a copy of the final legislation.
Nonetheless, members from both sides of the aisle in both the House and Senate admitted they doubted they would have adequate time to read the bill before they actually voted for it.
“Certainly I hope to have the opportunity to go through [the bill] before the vote takes place,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told CNSNews.com. “But that’s something I’ve found doesn’t always happen around here.”
Some lawmakers said one of the reasons they would not vote for the bill was because there would be no time to study it before it came up for a vote.
“The Democrats have thrown this at us very last-minute,” said Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.). “That’s why the rule of thumb in the United States Congress should be, ‘When in doubt, vote no,’ because the devil is in the details and that’s why this stimulus is not worthy of support.”
Rep. John Boozman (R-Ark.) shared that sentiment. “The American public expects for us to get in and know what we’re voting on,” Boozman said. “But there are very few members from Congress that are going to have time to actually read this thing.”
“This is not light reading,” Boozman added. “It’s difficult reading, it involves policy and things.”
“Right now, because of those things, I will probably vote against it,” he added.
Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.), President Barack Obama’s successor in the Senate, seemed baffled by the thought of actually reading the entire bill–as did his press secretary.
Anyone who is concerned about government transparency should be at least somewhat alarmed by that fact that those voting on this bill still haven’t had the time to read through it… afterall, the final stimulus bill well exceeds 1000 pages!
Even Capitol Hill staffers have expressed their frustration over the lack of access to the stimulus, many of which claim that some lobbyists have received a copy of the stimulus before Congressional offices.
We’re receiving E-mails from Capitol Hill staffers expressing frustration that they can’t get a copy of the stimulus bill agreed to last night at a price of $789 billion. What’s more, staffers are complaining about who does have a copy: K Street lobbyists. E-mails one key Democratic staffer: “K Street has the bill, or chunks of it, already, and the congressional offices don’t. So, the Hill is getting calls from the press (because it’s leaking out) asking us to confirm or talk about what we know—but we can’t do that because we haven’t seen the bill. Anyway, peeps up here are sort of a combo of confused and like, ‘Is this really happening?’” Reporters pressing for details, meanwhile, are getting different numbers from different offices, especially when seeking the details of specific programs.
Worse, there seem to be several different versions of what was agreed upon, with some officials circulating older versions of the package that seems to still be developing. Leadership aides said that it will work out later today and promised that lawmakers will get time to review the bill before Friday’s vote.
In light of such developments, it is also worth mentioning that a recent Rasmussen Poll found “just 24% believe most of Congress will understand the contents of the 700-page-plus plan before they vote.” Is this just a lack of faith in American legislators? Or could it be a reflection of the lack of public access to the possible changes made to the stimulus? Maybe both.
The question is, is this stimulus “emergency legislation?” Traditionally the term has been used when referring to security threats to the country. The only way that Obama’s pledge for transparency can be defended in light of this stimulus mess, is if we were to determine that the nature of the economic crisis is such that the stimulus could not afford the five-day waiting period… this doesn’t hold water. The very idea that this stimulus is “emergency legislation” and cannot endure five days of public review is preposterous! No matter how dire our economic times are, an extra THREE DAYS of public access before being signed into law can’t make that much of a difference.
I hope that President Obama can ensure greater government transparency in the end, for until now, he hasn’t been nearly as forthcoming as many of us had hoped. And with all the problems facing the Obama administration right now (i.e. cabinet positions), it would be refreshing to see some of that old “hope and change” rhetoric realized.
- Marc
Marc, both SCHIP and Ledbetter had already spent over a year in both houses, and the bill that was passed was unchanged from those earlier versions.
You’re reaching. And so was John Boehner when he said the same thing this morning.
Actually, the Obama administration adressed these concerns directly in their blog post last week. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog_post/update_on_sunlight_before_signing/
As I wrote in my blog entry, the administration cited procedural questions concerning posting and the Congressional calendar (which is not yet set) as obstacles that still need to be addressed before this can be done on an ongoing basis.
http://www.ombwatch.org/node/9706
Reaching? Huh, that’s one way to put it. So, did Pres. Obama say that there would be a five-day review period, unless it hasn’t changed from earlier versions? I honestly don’t know…maybe that’s just semantics though.
The post was good. I thought that Marc had quite a few well thought out points which seemed to be factually accurate.
I wouldn’t find it surprising though, that anybody who was swept up in the “Change You Can Believe In” movement would have any problem believing that Pres. Obama will have the most transparent administration in U.S. history and that Pelosi would be at the helm of “the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.” Even if the statements prove to be true, would that even be all that impressive to be the ‘most’ of each of those categories? I think not. Maybe if they were to use terms like; completely and absolute I would have higher hopes, even so, they’re just words!
“Change You Can Believe In” was a campaign slogan and anyone who took that to be policy has an unrealistic view of American politics and is in for disappointment. That actually goes for any campaign rhetoric from any candidate, in my book.
But it’s unrealistic to assume anyone elected to this office will come through 100% on the promises. Where I find Marc’s argument here lacking is that Obama has provided avenues toward open government that haven’t existed before, and surpass even those of the Clinton White House. For someone (Marc) who open defends the Patriot Act, and how that legislation came to be, claiming that Obama has already let us down seems a little desperate of an attack.
I’m disappointed with several things so far (rendition is the first to come to mind) but to say Obama hasn’t already made greater inroads toward transparency in respect to all previous administrations is a glaring misrepresentation.
Pingback: Those lying teabaggers, talking about rationing! « The Lyssa