Obama Falling Short of Promised Online Openness; Does it Matter?
When he came into office Barack Obama made sweeping changes in favor of transparency in general and openness on the web in particular. One important promise the administration made has not been kept, however, according to a study released this week.
On the day the Presidency changed hands the White House made a blog post that included a promise that all non-emergency legislation would be posted online for five days before the President signed it into law so as to "allow the public to review and comment before the President signs it." That hasn't happened so far; Obama has signed 11 bills into law and only 1 spent 5 days online between Congress and his office. Now some observers say it doesn't matter and that it was a wrongheaded promise in the first place.
Tracking the specific bills and the dates they were posted online was done by the Cato Institute's Jim Harper. He's posted an excellent chart with links to the specifics here.
Harper summarized his findings as such:
Of the eleven bills President Obama has signed, only six have been posted on Whitehouse.gov. None have been posted for a full five days after presentment from Congress.One bill, the DTV Delay Act, was posted after it was cleared for presentment by Congress February 4th, with the President signing it February 11th. This arguably satisfies the five-day promise, though presentment - a constitutional step in the legislative process - would be a better time to start the five-day clock. (Congress presented it February 9th.)
Several times the White House has posted a bill while it remains in Congress, attempting to satisfy the five-day rule. But this doesn't give the public an opportunity to review the final legislation - especially any last minute amendments. Versions of the children's health insurance legislation, the omnibus spending bill, and the omnibus public land management bill were linked to from Whitehouse.gov while making their ways through Congress, but not posted in final form.
Does This Matter?
The Sunlight Foundation's Paul Blumenthal points to a Google Groups discussion where Cato's Harper discusses his findings with prominent NYU Professor Clay Shirky and others.
Shirky argues there that posting legislation online for 5 days between Congress approving it and the President signing it is of very limited utility. He says in fact that transparency would be more appropriately applied to bills while they are in Congress, and the 5-day promise of posting before the President signs bills did more harm than good.
...the place the Founders decided to host most of the "system gaming" is in Congress, where factions are to be contained, to contend with the construction of legislation before it goes to the White House.That's where legislative transparency might make a difference. I think the Obama promise was meant to model the appropriate attitude towards transparency, but I'm willing to bet that they've made implementing useful (read: legislative) transparency harder, because they've tried to demonstrate its efficacy in a place and manner that won't produce many good outcomes, and it will be hard to extrapolate from that to the idea that transparency will be good elsewhere in the system.
In response Harper writes that legislators would be much more cautious about throwing in last minute wasteful spending if they knew their work was going to sit out in the light of day for 5 days before it got signed. He also argues that it's important to hold the President to his campaign promises.
What do you think? Is it important that legislation be posted on the web for 5 days between when it's completed by Congress and when it's signed by the President? It's one thing to applaud Obama's use of the web and historic stance of transparency, but when it comes down to brass tacks - there are tactical decisions that need to be thought through. Presumably there are some things about using the web from the White House that the new administration is going to learn on the fly. Making a promise to take a particular step and not doing it at all doesn't seem good though, and arguments like Shirky's could have been foreseen before the promise was made.
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
i think its a bad time for these things to be looked into - the politicians are much more inclined about the economic situation than into the free speech libido we keep talking about.
Posted by: Anurag Gupta
|
April 10, 2009 11:59 AM
Yeah, it matters. It was a campaign promise. Is Obama going to change America, or just change his mind?
Marshall,
You know that election politics and actually being in the office are two different things. Very few people can "talk the talk" and "walk the walk" at the same time.
I think what is more fundamentally important in 2009 - is separating us from the policies of 2000-2008. That is what in the end and what will matter one day in history, is whether 2009 made progress to changing the last almost decade.
Whether a politician can play by the talk he laid down on the campaign trail to get elected or whether he actually tries to do something different - that is the bigger picture that needs addressed by this administration.
I can forego a 5 day viewing period, as long as we as a country move ahead again.
Rex
I was under the impression that Obama was going to change things, but like Brent said, all he seems to be changing is his mind.
I don't care if every bill is online for 5 days, we elect representatives to take care of that stuff for us. The problem is that Obama promised this during his campaign and he isn't following through. That wouldn't be a big deal for most politicians, but he also ran on a platform of changing the way things were done in Washington. He clearly is the same as the rest of them.
What Shirky fails to mention is that the Founders didn't want there to be career politicians. That would make a lot more of a difference than anything involving "legislative transparency".
Sigh. "OMG he's not doing everything he said!"
No, I don't care about this particular one. And I'm sick and tired of people who come out of the woodwork to decry any slight missed promise (I'm speaking of the commenters, not Marshall here). Do I LIKE that he's ot following through on this? Not really. But is this even close to the most important promise he made? Of course not.
There seems to be a pretty significant shift to openness though - from the transition site to data.gov, we're movng in the right direction. Let's see where we are a year or so in, not 8 weeks.
Oh and those holier than thou folks... you're perfect, right? Never dropped the ball, made a mistake, promised and then had to modify or go back on something? Right? Thought not...
@Rick, as your comment appears to be pointed to me, I'll take the opportunity to respond, at least to a few of your points.
"And I'm sick and tired of people who come out of the woodwork..." At least I actually came out of the woodwork. Posted with my full name and linked to my blog.
"There seems to be a pretty significant shift to openness though..." Agreed, and it's a good thing. But there's a difference between openness and providing information *and* time to respond, time to make a difference. If you agree 100% with Obama, great. You don't need or want the five days. Jump on the railroad and enjoy the ride.
"Oh and those holier than thou folks... you're perfect, right?" Nice attempt at changing the topic. The issue is whether Obama's broken promise matters. Not whether I'm perfect, you're perfect, or even whether Obama's perfect. In this country, we can express political opinions regardless of our perfection. That's a good thing for me ... maybe even for you. ;-)
Oh, and what Brad said. Peace.
Of course, Obama was breaking promises before he even got elected. Remember the one about campaign spending limits? He didn't just break it, he blew it out of the water!
Having said that, much of the information that the President has pledged to put online is already there in one form or another. The entire stimulus package is online. And even before it was online, it was no secret that politicians of both parties were loading it with bucketloads of "bridge to nowhere" projects and Obama was doing nothing to stop it. In other words, politics as usual was back with a vengeance.
But the bill passed. There was no outcry from the electorate. The American people just didn't seem to give a damn.
The thing is, our federal government has always been pretty transparent, even under the Bush administration. I mean, almost everyone on the planet knew that the Bush #43 was manipulating evidence about WMD's prior to the invasion of Iraq. But he got away with it because we let him get away with it.
So Obama's got more important things to worry about than putting congressional legislation on the internet. And the American people have more important things to worry about than Obama's broken promises. Change never comes from the top down. It comes from the bottom up.
why do some people believe in what hasn't been tested? change and all that in a click? that promises aren't made to be broken?
too much expectations will bring you frustrations.
just what i've said after the election - let's watch and see. now here comes complaints after how many months in the office? :)
I don't really have an answer to the poll question itself, because I believe direct democracy is awful and am a fan of representative government.
However, it's a little irritating to look at the reams of fawning press coverage he's been given over all of these promises-- then no sooner is it failed, we are given a question like 'does it matter'.
Well, yes, either it matters, or the previous positive coverage of the idea was complete baloney. The time to ask 'does it matter' is when a feelgood idea like this is thrown out there. But I mistakenly assumed that the people celebrating promises like this were at least being honest at the time.
I agree with Clay Shirky. Who really cares if the bill is online. The reality is that the damage has been done BEFORE it goes to the President for signature.
There are two main points to be made:
1 It is the bill writing process that should be transparent: It is the lobbyists that have written the bill to benefit the people that pay them (not the citizens, but the special interests).
As such, whether the bill is posted for 5 or 50 days really doesn't matter one wit if there is no opportunity for actual change and negotiation to the bill.
2) Most citizens simply do not have the time or the expertise to "read a bill", comment on the bill usefully ("yes, I think this is a good bill" OR "No, this is a bad bill").
Sure there could be one or two citizens out there that actually may have the time or may have the expertize, but how do you actually know that? How do you determine that Sam in Chicago or Sanjay in Dallas actually know what they are commenting on? Unfortunately you do not.
Shaun Dakin
CEO
The National Political Do Not Contact Registry
@EndTheRoboCalls
@IsCoo
@AskThePresident
internet security is a major issue, the white house servers get attacked by hackers all the time, does having the bill online make the white house computers more vulnerable? here is an interesting article about no matter how secure your connection you are still vulnerable
OMG...Barack Obama has not satisfied his campaign promises after being in office for 2 freaking months...some of you are unreal.
We all know how busy we get when working. Some things end up falling to the wayside...you have to pick and choose what does.
Maybe they are just focusing on the priorities?
Ok done defending....it is crucial they aren't just swallowed by the same ol political machine and push for transparency wherever they can.
They should be posting every bill, budget, etc online whenever they can.
There is a lot of organization that has to occur for this dream to become reality.
The procedures for e-mailing the President, currently do not agree with conformation between the sender and receiver. This manner removes the president's agreement that his intentions are those to correct, improve or revise. That's due to the quick replacement of those in Congress utilizing the internet and e-mail. We could actually vote every bill as we should in a Democracy, since the powers of government are vested with all the people.
I proposed this be done in 2005, and even proved that verifying e-mails three times at three different locations proved me...the sender. I often wrote my messages like that just for etiquette. That allowed both parties to know at the same time, democrat or republican.
The evolution of transparency of information through the development of internet technologies is one of true possible game changers in our society and the world.
But using the word transparency as rhetoric leaves us right where we started.
If Obama had any intention of using the internet to promote transparency he would have publish the stimulus bill in something other than a PDF.
When you have the co-founder of Facebook on your team, how long do you think it would take build a database driven application to organize and share legislation as it is drafted and as it evolves through the legislative process.
As the legislation is written, copy it, tag it and post it. Then invite those interested to follow it. Ask followers to create a profile to include questions to reflect their behaviors, interests and economic standing.
Now if you are so interested in what the "people" think then create clouds to help discern and relate the profiles to the feedback on the legislation to create a statistical model to interpret what people are thinking, who they are and the demographics they represent.
Oh and here is a concept. Maybe use these tools to help
the legislature mine the information in the bill so they can better understand what they are supporting because lord knows it is impossible to read every line of every bill they have to vote on. (It is impossible)
The tool that is on Whitehouse.gov "to hear the people" is lip service. It is a facade to make people feel good that they have a voice and that the government cares. NOW WHAT.
What are they doing with the information? Is the information passed on to a senator or a congressperson for consideration?
This is not to pick on Obama. All administrations have faced this. It is just that Obama has hyped this like no other.
And the information coming out of government is infinitely more important than the information coming from the people. (People don't legislate and create laws, they do).
Or job is to vote them out if we don't like what they do not govern. If we want to govern so bad, then let's run for office. It is the nature of our Republic.
But how are we supposed to know what they are doing if we can't monitor and process the vast amount of information. And more importantly is we do not know what they are doing.
Every piece of legislation that does not affect our security should be made available as it proposed and drafted. We should know the history of all of the players and their connections with lobbyist and who they have worked for in the past.
In the past all of this information would have been useless. Today we have the tools to mine this data more effectively than ever and with the advent of semantic technologies and discovery tools are on the way to true transparency.
Setup a platform that requires accountability and if some don't want to participate, vote them out.
But quit with the rhetoric. Put your money where you mouth is and do the do.
If the republicans want to get back in favor maybe they will find somebody who would be willing to lead the charge to hold information accountable not just government or business.
It is not only government that needs a taste of transparency but business both big and small.
Imagine if we would have utilized these technologies for bundling mortgages into securities.
People! There is already a web site that posts federal legislation and its accompanying info (sponsors, bill status, versions etc) : thomas.loc.gov -- why should the White House reinvent the wheel? Also there is bill info on the Senate and House Committee web sites.
thanks for articles