NYC Letter: More Awesome Change! VI

Day 130 of CHOPE

Problems with CHOPE critics? Force them to publish.

I am writing with an update on the President’s March 20, 2009 Memorandum on Ensuring Responsible Spending of Recovery Act Funds. Section 3 of the Memorandum required all oral communications between federally registered lobbyists and government officials concerning Recovery Act policy to be disclosed on the Internet; barred registered lobbyists from having oral communications with government officials about specific Recovery Act projects or applications and instead required those communications to be in writing; and also required those written communications to be posted on the Internet. That Memorandum instructed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review the initial 60 days of implementation of the stimulus lobbying restrictions, to evaluate the data, and to recommend modifications.

Following OMB’s review, the Administration has decided to make a number of changes to the rules that we think make them even tougher on special interests and more focused on merits-based decision making.

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 [sic] 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.

Norm Eisen,
special counsel to the president
for ethics and government reform,
curbing pesky influencers
"in the spirit of transparency as always"
NEW LIMITS ON SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCE
May 29, 2009 (White House)

A selective ban on oral communications not bearing on national security or a legal oath or contract is unconstitutional as we understand the Constitution. A blanket ban is not only that much more unconstitutional but impractical to boot. "Anyone else exerting influence on the process" covers a lot of "anyones". It can, at the government's discretion, include journalists, party spokesfolk, slackers at the water cooler -- anyone with an opinion on the process. It can, dear skimmer, include you. There is no practical way of enforcing such a general ban. Ask the Soviets. [Pause.] Oh, wait. You can't.

What does this mean? We think many of Mr. Obama's fans have misconstrued the threat (and this). Mr. Obama's government wants to make public discourse more congenial to government policy by inconveniencing dissent, not silencing it. We doubt Mr. Obama is prepared to hire legions of water cooler snitches -- though that would dramatically boost his anemic job creation. However, this continues a disturbing tendency (and here) among Obama minions to squelch the less-than-adoring.

The transparency -- "as always" -- to which Mr. Eisen refers is not in this ambiguous rule, but in disclosing the rule. The government intends to convert public discourse to published discourse where public discourse "influences the process". Fair enough. Now you know.

CHOPE.

"In the spirit of transparency as always."