News. Debate. Community. Levers for a better democracy.
MOST READ
Get some leverage.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
Open Government
Pool/Getty Images
Claim: The President may sign an executive order limiting freedom of speech. Fact check: Mixed
May 29 2020
The president can issue an executive on anything he wants, but its impact and legality is a question. Trump signed an executive order that could limit social media companies' legal protections after Twitter began fact-checking on his posts.
According to The Washington Post, lawmakers in Congress and a variety of legal experts from across the political spectrum "doubted the legality of Trump's draft proposal and feared its implications for free speech."
Some in the tech industry even began quietly discussing their legal options, including a potential lawsuit challenging Trump's order, the Post reported.
From Your Site Articles
- How disinformation could sway the 2020 election - The Fulcrum ›
- Joaquin Castro tweet about Trump donors sparks privacy fight - The ... ›
- Trump threatens Twitter after being fact checked - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Fred Schilling / Supreme Court
The Supreme Court's next oral arguments will be the first using a live audio feed for the public.
Covid consequence: Supreme Court will let you listen in live
Apr 13 2020
The Supreme Court finally decided to move cautiously into the 20th century on Monday, announcing that several of its next oral arguments will be broadcast live.
The notoriously opaque court revealed the history-making change in a brief news release explaining plans to break with several precedents during the coronavirus outbreak.
The decision is by far the biggest win for government transparency advocates brought about by Covid-19, which has so far been cited much more often for pushing state and local governments to conduct emergency business in the relative shadows.
<p>Half the remaining cases of the term will be argued on telephone conference calls, another first for the court, with the justices and lawyers calling in remotely "in keeping with public health guidance in response to Covid-19," the statement said. "The court anticipates providing a live audio feed of these arguments to news media."</p>
<p>Several of those outlets reported the audio feed for the 10 arguments in May would be made available to the general public although few details were provided immediately.</p>
<p>Many state and local courts have long allowed audio and video broadcasts and a limited number of federal district and appellate courts have experimented with the idea and continue to allow it on a limited basis.</p>
<p>It wasn't until 2010 that audio recordings for all of the Supreme Court's arguments were posted on its website at the end of the week,</p>
<p>The high court has resisted the idea of live audio or TV, with some justices concerned that such coverage would detract from the court's somber atmosphere and cause attorneys — and perhaps even some justices — to grandstand.</p>
<p>Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan testified in March 2019 before a House Appropriations subcommittee, the first time justices had appeared before a congressional committee since 2014. Both expressed reservations about audio and video coverage of court proceedings.</p>
<p>"We don't want access at the expense of damaging the decision-making process," Alito told the subcommittee.</p>
<p>Anthony Marcum with the <a href="http://thefulcrum.us/r-street-institute" target="_self">R Street Institute</a>, a conservative good government think tank, lauded the court's decision as sending "a powerful message that the court remains open for business."</p>
<p>"After this current health crisis is over, there is little reason why the court should not continue this practice," Marcum said.</p>
<p>The response from the group Fix the Court, which advocates for transparency and other reforms in the judicial system, was a bit more pointed. Said Executive Director Gabe Roth: "Supreme Court arguments going live next month? And all it took was a global pandemic."</p>
<p>"The court will have no excuse come next term to maintain a live audio policy for every argument, and we'll do our part to make sure that live video is not too far behind," Roth said.</p><p>Among the cases that will be heard live, which were originally supposed to be argued in March and April, are two involving President Trump's efforts to withhold his tax returns and other financial records from Congress and a Manhattan prosecutor. Another involves whether presidential electors may be required to vote in December for the candidate who wins the state's popular vote in November.</p><p>Decisions in these cases will likely be issued during the current term, which normally ends in June but may need to be extended into July. The other cases from March and April that won't be heard in May will be carried over to the next term.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Coronavirus spurs closing of public meetings and records - The ... ›
- Few states shine in their transparency of ethics enforcement - The ... ›
- Transparency is a weapon that is ruining Congress - The Fulcrum ›
- Trump undercuts big win for transparency advocates - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less
Alex Wong/Getty Images
President Trump "made an apparent attempt to undermine the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee when he replaced the acting inspector general who had been named to lead it," writes POGO's Danielle Brian.
It's more clear now than ever: Inspectors general need stronger protections
Apr 13 2020
Brian is executive director of the Project On Government Oversight, a nonpartisan group that investigates misconduct and conflicts of interest by federal officials.
Government oversight is under attack right now.
In just a few days last week, President Trump removed an inspector general for doing his job, stalled operations of the new Pandemic Response Accountability Committee and attacked an acting inspector general for releasing a report that he didn't like. These actions undermined all IGs across the federal government — the independent government watchdogs charged with investigating federal agencies and departments and holding their behavior accountable.
Trump's actions exposed just how vulnerable inspectors general are, making clear that greater independence is needed. Inspectors general currently serve at the pleasure of the president, and one perceived misstep can cost an IG their job, as we saw when Trump fired Michael Atkinson as inspector general for the intelligence community.
<p>
Now we're set to rely on inspectors general to oversee more than $2 trillion in emergency spending. That's an amount almost half the size of the entire annual federal budget, and the president will be able to remove any of them at-will if he doesn't like what he sees. Indeed, Trump made an apparent attempt to undermine the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee when he replaced the acting inspector general who had been named to lead it.
</p>
<p>
Independent oversight of the coronavirus economic rescue package will be crucial to making sure that taxpayer dollars go to those who need it most, not to the politically well-connected. In order to ensure oversight is conducted independently, Congress must pass a law protecting inspectors general from unwarranted removal by the president. And it needs to do so right now.
</p>
<p>
Inspectors general were created to make sure Congress has eyes and ears within executive agencies. Through audits, investigations and work with whistleblowers, these watchdogs are ensuring that you as a taxpayer are getting the greatest possible value from an executive branch that is supposed to serve you.
</p>
<p>
Failing to give all inspectors general protection against getting fired other than "for cause," like those enjoyed by the members of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the IG at the U.S. Postal Service, would be tantamount to Congress closing its eyes, throwing money at a problem — and just hoping for the best.
</p>
<p>
Congress last revamped the laws governing IGs a dozen years ago, most notably by giving them law enforcement powers. The <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-110hr928eh/pdf/BILLS-110hr928eh.pdf" target="_blank">House version of the bill</a>, passed with strong bipartisan support, would have prevented any president from removing an IG for anything but good cause — such as violation of the law, neglect of duty and abuse of authority — but those protections were cut out in the Senate. Congress should now finish what the House started in 2008.
</p>
<p>
Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee, who led that effort, introduced legislation last week that would give inspectors general for-cause removal protections and seven year-terms. Fellow Democrat Chris Murphy of Connecticut says he will push a companion bill in the Senate, and I sincerely hope this effort gains steam.
</p>
<p>
With hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of taxpayer dollars on the line, we cannot afford to leave our federal watchdogs unprotected. The stakes are too high to allow relief funds to end up in the pockets of the politically connected at the expense of families trying to make rent.
</p>
<p>
There's no real "success" to be found after a pandemic. This is undoubtedly a crisis that has shaken us to our core and will have effects for years or even decades to come. But Congress can and should mitigate loss where possible — including loss of money to waste or fraud that could have gone to hardworking families.
</p>
<p>
To do that, they need to bolster IG independence for this current crisis and beyond.
</p>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<em></em>
</div>
From Your Site Articles
- White House lacked top ethics official for 6 months - The Fulcrum ›
- Trump undercuts big win for transparency advocates - The Fulcrum ›
- Project on Government Oversight - The Fulcrum ›
- House passes bill to speed an end to inspector general vacancies ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin discusses oversight of the stimulus fund dispersal.
Big transparency win in stimulus package undercut by Trump administration
Mar 30 2020
Open government advocates and Democratic leaders in Congress are angry the Trump administration seems to be walking away from crucial transparency language in the economic stabilization package.
Aside from the funds to make voting safer and more convenient this fall, the democracy reform movement was pleased most by a provision in the law creating an independent watchdog to oversee a $500 billion fund to bail out companies crippled by the coronavirus pandemic.
But after signing the $2 trillion package last week, President Trump signaled he would decide what this inspector general could share with the public and Congress. And when Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin sought Sunday to dispel concerns about government accountability in administering the biggest domestic economic relief package in American history, he refused to pledge that the IG would be permitted to testify on Capitol Hill.
<p>"I'm going to leave that to the lawyers, OK, and to Congress to figure out," Mnuchin said on Fox News. "We're going to have full transparency in reporting what we're doing to the American public."</p><p>Creation of the IG was a safeguard that Democrats insisted upon as a condition of supporting the corporate bailout fund at the heart of the rescue package.</p><p>The law allows the president and Treasury secretary to approve loans, loan guarantees and other aid to American companies, but with a watchdog nominated by Trump and confirmed by the Senate to oversee and audit the disbursements. Under the law, this IG has the power to demand information from the Treasury Department and other federal agencies — and is supposed to tell Congress "without delay" if any part of the executive branch is uncooperative.</p><p>Two hours after signing the bill Friday, Trump issued a separate statement that he "will not treat" that language as permitting the inspector general to report to Congress without "presidential supervision."</p><p>That declaration only buttressed the argument by Democrats and open government advocacy groups, who pressed for tough language in the measure precisely because the president has such a strong history of rebuffing efforts at congressional oversight, especially when it comes to executive branch officials seeking to reveal perceived misbehavior. (Trump's impeachment, after all, got started with a whistleblower complaint about the withholding of military aid from Ukraine for an inappropriately political reason.)</p><p>"We don't accept that. We don't accept that. We will have our oversight," Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Sunday. "It's just the same, business as usual for the president."</p><p>On Monday the nonpartisan <a data-linked-post="2638673739" href="https://thefulcrum.us/project-on-government-oversight" target="_blank">Project on Government Oversight</a> called the administration's moves "a slap in the face" that "signals that the administration is more committed to advancing executive branch power grabs than they are to ensuring the emergency funds go where they are needed most."</p><p><span></span>The signing statement also challenged, on constitutional separation of powers grounds, the law's requirement that Congress be consulted about the membership of a panel to be formed in the executive branch to oversee the government's pandemic response.</p><p>While such statements have no legal force, they provide a formal record of a president's understanding of a new law's meaning and serve as guidance to the rest of his administration in carrying out the statute. </p><p>Congress has no power to reverse these views through legislation, so it's unclear how lawmakers can assure the oversight they thought they'd engineered gets done. Extracting a promise from Trump's proposed IG nominee may be their best hope.</p><p>The "signing statement threatens to undermine the authority and independence of this new IG," Michael Bromwich, a former Justice Department inspector general, said on Twitter. "The Senate should extract a commitment from the nominee that Congress will be promptly notified of any Presidential / Administration interference or obstruction."</p><p>Democrats blocked the initial Senate Republican stimulus bill because of its lack of oversight language, only agreeing to the bailout fund once the IG provision was included.</p><p>Under the law, Congress is also authorized to create its own panel to oversee the use of the stimulus money and expose waste fraud and abuse, and Pelosi says that committee will be created soon and told to operate "in real time to make sure we know where those funds are."</p><p>POGO had called that language "a major victory" after getting it into the bill with the help of two senators, Wisconsin Republican Ron Johnson and Michigan Democrat Gary Peters.</p><p>"Whenever the government is trying to spend this much money, we should have good transparency and good accountability to the extent that we can," Marc Goldwein of the <a data-linked-post="2638674268" href="https://thefulcrum.us/committee-for-responsible-federal-budget" target="_blank">Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget</a>, a nonpartisan think tank, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/03/27/trump-coronavirus-inspector-general/" target="_blank">told The Washington Post</a>. </p><p>"We are fully comfortable that whatever we do, we want full transparency and we're very careful about supporting American workers and the American economy," Mnuchin had said on Fox.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Coronavirus alters democracy reform world's priorities - The Fulcrum ›
- Senators push vote-at-home in virus-related stimulus bill - The Fulcrum ›
- Stimulus has $400 million to make voting safer, no mandates to ... ›
- House Democrats include $3.6B for elections in new stimulus - The Fulcrum ›
- More than ever, inspectors general need stronger protection - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Keep reading...
Show less