Obama Vows Transparency & New Rules for Lobbying

[Pangloss]

The president had a briefing for the press a short while ago, and I rolled back the Tivo to watch it. I thought it was pretty interesting. CNN already has a story up about it (though it doesn't yet include most of what I'm talking about below):

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/obama.business/index.html

 

He's laid down some new rules regarding transparency, but what's interesting about it is that he's changed the basis for information-handling from a presumption of secrecy to a presumption of public exposure. That's very different from previous administrations. Obviously he can't reveal private information (no more Valery Plames, one would hope), or information vital to national security (which could mean anything, as we know), but this does sound like a game-changer to me, at least on the surface. What do you all think?

 

He also mentioned hiring freezes for senior staff. A nice gesture but not real important, since they're not there for salaries anyway. But I suppose that has a little more significance in light of the next point.

 

He's also changed the rules for lobbying the administration. Now this is somewhat limited, because the most effective lobbying takes place on Capital Hill, but it's a significant change and he could be setting a precedent and Congress might feel pressured to adopt the new rules themselves.

 

Most significant changes:

- New hires in the White House cannot work in an area they lobbied in previously

- Former employees cannot lobby the White House for the rest of his administration

 

I think it's impressive and could be very effective, even if the effect is mainly in terms of appearances. What do you all think?

[SH3RL0CK]

Former WH employees cannot lobby the white house? Seems a bit draconian to me considering that:

 

1) most of these would be former GW Bush workers, as most of the Clinton workers were probably rehired under Obama. These people will need to do something to earn a living.

 

2) How is he defining "lobbying?"

 

Would any conversations with the officers from GM, Ford, and Chrysler regarding spending the bailout money be considered "lobbying" even if the WH initiated these discussions? Hello new GM employee, I need your bank account numbers so we can send you the check electronically and so that you don't go bankrupt...wait a minute, can I get someone else on the line?

 

Suppose someone from the Bush Administration becomes the governor from a state, would they be barred from the WH? How about while discussing the next Katrina disaster that may happen under Obama's watch? From any governors meetings with the President?

 

I can see this a very effective way to "punish" people who had the nerve to work for G.W. Bush. If this is the case, what corporation or political think tank would ever hire anyone from the WH regardless of their qualifications?

 

Maybe I'm being cynical...I doubt there would be that much change in staff between terms. And I seriously doubt that Obama would take it to the extremes I have stated above, but I see potential for abuses.

 

Edit: Does anywhere state how long "former" employees couldn't lobby the WH? Is it one year or for forever? Certainly a short period of time (1 year) might be considered appropriate.

Edited January 21, 2009 by SH3RL0CK

[Sisyphus]

 

1) most of these would be former GW Bush workers

 

I was assuming it means lobby the same administration they worked for. What undue influence would a Bush staffer have in the Obama white house?

 

These people will need to do something to earn a living.

 

Um, boo hoo?

 

2) How is he defining "lobbying?"

 

Again, I'm assuming, but I thought this obviously meant acting as a paid lobbyist. Maybe the "what counts as a lobbyist" conversation never came up, since everyone in Washington knows exactly who they're talking about.

 

Suppose someone from the Bush Administration becomes the governor from a state, would they be barred from the WH? How about while discussing the next Katrina disaster that may happen under Obama's watch? From any governors meetings with the President?

 

Well, again, even if it did apply to Bushies, those clearly aren't lobbyists.

 

I see your point though. Those kinds of rules need to be very explicit. Personally I'm not so much worried about it being used to punish political enemies, and more worried that the loopholes would be too large and it would be ineffective. Any attempt to restrain the chummy Washington lobbyist culture is going to meet a whole lot of resistance from powerful people who won't take it seriously.

[Pangloss]

If memory serves, lobbyists are registered with the government, and are employed by companies (typically with addresses on K Street) with self-professed mission statements regarding their purpose. So when a lobbyist shows up and takes a meeting with a White House official on subjects that are covered by the basis of their employment, that's lobbying.

[SH3RL0CK]

Well, probably not a big deal. I'll take Obama at his word and assume good faith on this; clearly more transparency is a good thing.

 

I'm more worried about it being used to punish "whisleblowers" and those who stopped unethical actions without resorting to whistleblowing (at lower levels) than it being used to punish political enemies. After all the rhetoric is over, politicians generally get along very well with themselves.

[Pangloss]

Well this is why integrity in government is so critical, and one of the reasons people are so optimistic about the incoming (or is the proper word "new" now?) administration. There are so many ways around these rules, and consequences when they're spun, that it always seems to fall back on the quality of the people involved in making the decisions, both before and after.

 

But then I'm optimistic about every incoming administration, so what do I know.

[padren]

Well this is why integrity in government is so critical, and one of the reasons people are so optimistic about the incoming (or is the proper word "new" now?) administration. There are so many ways around these rules, and consequences when they're spun, that it always seems to fall back on the quality of the people involved in making the decisions, both before and after.

 

I think that even though these measures could be abused, the spirit of their intent is being made very clear - he did not have to do this - and it sets a precedent that makes abuse of spirit through a technicality harder to forgive down the road, and thus helps to dissuade such future actions.

 

Regardless of whether it's airtight it sets a very good tone for what conduct will be viewed as ethical going ahead.

[iNow]

It's well aligned with his language since he entered public office. Since he ran for a seat in Illinois he's been talking about opening up government to the people, and getting past the secret handshake backroom politics we've all come to know. He's also planning to work with google to open up information and make it searchable us, John Q. Public. I think transparency is the goal, and his rhetoric suggests he wants to include people more fully in their democracy... Not HIS government, THEIR government. I think this is a good start, and I look forward to seeing where it goes.

[Pangloss]

A little side note to this: Today Obama endorsed the Democratic National Committee's choice for its new chairman. No surprise there, but two items were a bit eye-opening.

 

1) He actually got the incoming DNC chairman, Tim Kaine, to agree to adopt a less partisan, more pragmatic approach to its work. Kaine is seen as a centrist or moderate anyway, so this is no great shock, but the contrast with Howard Dean's DNC message is pretty sharp (as anyone on their mailing list can attest). And it's especially interesting given that Tim Kaine has another job -- governor of the state of Virginia.

 

2) Obama turned over his 13 million email addresses from the campaign to the DNC. Not that that's directly related, but it does perhaps make sense in context with the above, since that list probably trends far more towards the middle than the DNC's own list.

 

The message is clear: Now that it has the big tent back, it has every intention of keeping it inflated. (Sorry MoveOn.org.)

 

Some info here:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZ5wPD-HPy1q0dJvqRKK5Z14A_YQD95RPG200

[ecoli]

just to be clear, your not trying to make an appeal to the middle ground are you?

[Pangloss]

Who me? Would I ever do such a thing? You know what an extremist I am. All hail King Sean Rush Franken Penn the First!

[iNow]

The President’s Executive Order on Ethics and how it is being implemented:

 

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/10/Ethics-Update/

One of President Obama’s first official acts upon taking office was to sign the ethics Executive Order. The Order establishes some of the toughest ethics rules ever imposed on executive branch appointees. It has been widely praised by commentators and leading good government advocates for the hard line it takes on lobbyists and others riding the revolving door between government service and the private sector in order to achieve personal gain at the expense of the public interest. <

more at link

>

[bascule]

He's laid down some new rules regarding transparency, but what's interesting about it is that he's changed the basis for information-handling from a presumption of secrecy to a presumption of public exposure.

 

I'm a big fan of providing the public with as much information as he can to scrutinize existing policies and provide alternatives.

 

This provides the capability for true democracy in a system which is fundamentally a republic. Ideas from the public can percolate across the Internet (possibly via avenues like change.gov) and eventually reach lawmakers who can actually enact them into public policy.

[iNow]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/24/Open-for-Questions-President-Obama-to-Answer-Your-Questions-on-Thursday/

 

Open for Questions: President Obama to Answer Your Questions on Thursday

Today, the President invited everyone to use a new feature on WhiteHouse.gov called "

Open for Questions

" to ask a question about the economy and rate other questions up or down. Then, on Thursday morning, the President will conduct a special online town hall on the economy and answer some of the most popular questions and the event will be streamed on WhiteHouse.gov.

 

hjJm_Hzc6Yg

 

"Open for Questions" is a new experiment for WhiteHouse.gov, the President’s latest effort to open up the White House and give Americans from around the country a direct line to the Administration.

 

This first round will deal with a chief concern for all of us: the economy. We’ve created a few categories to better organize the questions, and encourage you to search for a specific question before you submit your own in case it already exists.

 

To get started, head over to

http://WhiteHouse.gov/OpenForQuestions

and set up your account. Then follow the simple instructions to start voting on questions or submit your own (we encourage you to include a link to a published video of the question being asked, although this is not required).

 

This experiment is about encouraging transparency and accountability, so ask the President exactly what it is you want to know – but let others do the same. It is a community-moderated system, but remember that even though you may not like the viewpoint behind someone’s question, everyone has a right to their opinion. Also remember that Americans of all ages will be participating in this event, so be thoughtful about the words you choose. Participants are asked to follow some

basic guidelines

for submitting their own questions and flagging other questions as inappropriate.

 

So be part of history in the making and ask away. The team here at the White House can’t wait to see America’s response!

 

Maybe I should have put this in the "Does the US Need Questions?" thread, but I see it as more about transparency than about political accountability.