close X

Search Results for: IRS

The Daily Caller: McAuliffe’s GreenTech company bypassed state law in acquiring land, failed to produce a single car

August 1, 2013 by

McAuliffe’s GreenTech company bypassed state law in acquiring land, failed to produce a single car

Patrick Howley

Reporter

10:47 PM 07/31/2013

Virginia candidate for governor Terry McAuliffe bypassed state law to acquire land for his “green car” factory in Mississippi and invited President Obama to attend an event for the company that subsequently bogged down in a wide-ranging scandal.

Documents obtained by Cause of Action through a Freedom of Information Act request indicate Obama considered attending the rollout of GreenTech Automotive’s first electric car. McAuliffe was the chairman of the company, but quietly resigned in December 2012.

GreenTech is currently embroiled in a scandal over the company’s EB-5 visas. (RELATED: Virginia lawmakers pressure McAuliffe over GreenTech scandal) The Washington Free Beacon recently reported there is no evidence GreenTech has produced any cars, green or otherwise.

“GreenTech Automotive, a Chinese-funded EB-5 project, is rolling out its first electric car at their pilot plant in Horn Lake, Mississippi… President Bill Clinton’s attendance has been confirmed by GreenTech, whose brother-in-law Tony Rodham is President & CEO of the EB-5 regional center Gulf Coast Funds Management, LLC which facilitated the project. President Obama has been invited and there is a chance that he will attend,” according to an April 2012 memo the Mississippi Development Authority sent to Mississippi governor Phil Bryant.

The event took place in July 2012, with Bill Clinton in attendance.

But the company bypassed Mississippi’s legal process in buying up land for the factory in 2011.

The Tunica County Economic Development Foundation, a group in Mississippi headed by Tunica County Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Lyn Arnold, worked out a strategy to secure land for GreenTech without going through the proper legal approval process.

“The county is preparing to purchase the 100 acres for GTA and close by 9/9/2011,” Arnold wrote in a September 1, 2011 email providing “an update on GTA from the Tunica perspective.”

“The land will actually become the property of the Tunica County Economic Development Foundation (my organization). GTA will have full use of the land even to the point of pledging the land for additional financing. Once the facility is constructed and employment reaches 350, the land will be fully transferred to GTA. The only way the deal is structured this way is without special legislation, this is the only legal way a county can provide land to benefit a private company,” Arnold wrote.

“I have been speaking with Charlie regularly, mostly about the EB-5 applications and getting those approved by US Customs and Immigration. USCIS has stalled us at every opportunity, but along with Senator Wicker’s office and Congressman Thompson’s office, we are hopefully moving those approvals along,” Arnold wrote.

Sec. 31-7-13 of the Mississippi Code requires a strict bidding procedure for land purchases over $15,000, mandating a published notice of the sale and requiring competition for a winning bid. As Arnold’s email demonstrates, GreenTech obtained the land from the Tunica County Economic Development Foundation without making a competitive bid.

McAuliffe’s GreenTech scandal is gaining heat as the Virginia gubernatorial race progresses.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)  director Alejandro Mayorkas is currently under federal investigation for helping an investor in Gulf Coast Funds Management, run by Hillary Clinton’s brother Anthony “Tony” Rodham, receive an EB-5 visa, which grants conditional permanent residence to foreign nationals who invest significant amounts of money in the United States. The investor’s application had already been denied by the time Mayorkas became involved, and an appeal had already been shot down.

Mayorkas acknowledged that he met with McAuliffe, a business partner of Rodham, to generally discuss the USCIS visa application process, which McAuliffe complained was too slow.

“I was asked to attend a meeting with Mr. McAuliffe so that I could hear in person his complaints… I heard those complaints, and that was the extent of the interaction,” Mayorkas said.

Gulf Coast Funds Management handles EB-5 visas for investors in GreenTech Automotive, of which McAuliffe is chairman. GreenTech reportedly relies on EB-5 visas for its investors.

McAuliffe and Rodham took a fishing trip together in April 2013 to celebrate the launch of GreenTech’s MyCar electric vehicle, where they were photographed together.

The McAuliffe campaign, Gulf Coast Funds Management and Lyn Arnold did not return requests for comment.

Filed Under: News Tagged With:

FOIA Follies: HUD Flags Sensitive Freedom of Information Act Requests for Extra Scrutiny; Political Appointees Involved

July 31, 2013 by

Field offices of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) may not release records in response to FOIA requests deemed “sensitive” without obtaining approval from three HUD offices, according to a policy document obtained by Cause of Action from HUD’s Office of Inspector General.

A “sensitive” FOIA request is defined by the policy document as one that involves any of the following:

  • National significance, serious injury, or loss of life;
  • Information that could subject HUD to substantial litigation;
  • Current or former senior HUD management officials; or
  • Questions about HUD’s policies or the performance of departmental responsibilities.

The policy document, which is labeled “current as of April 7, 2008” and confirmed by HUD Public Affairs as still in effect, provides that any field office receiving such a request must notify its “Regional Director” and “Regional Field FOIA Liaison,” as well as “the Headquarters Division in the Office of Litigation.”  If a sensitive request is submitted by the media, the “Regional Public Affairs Officer” also must be notified.

After the above offices are notified, the field office handling the request must prepare a proposed response and obtain the “concurrence” of the Headquarters FOIA Division of the Office of Litigation, the Regional Director’s Office, and the “head of the relevant program office in Headquarters.”  If any of these offices disagree with the proposed response, the “Field FOIA Liaison must arrange a conference call with the FOIA division in Headquarters and the office(s) not approving of the response in order to resolve the outstanding issues and arrive at a consensus as to the appropriate response to the sensitive FOIA request.”

Notably, HUD Regional Directors and at least eight of twenty-two heads of HUD Program Offices, such as the General Counsel and Public and Indian Housing offices, are political appointees.

HUD’s policy concerning sensitive FOIA requests was initially revealed by the HUD IG to Congress on September 29, 2010 in response to an inquiry concerning the politicization of FOIA.  Neither the IG nor HUD has proactively disclosed this policy document to the public, nor is it referenced in HUD’s publicly available FOIA material.**  Perhaps worst of all, the IG’s report to Congress downplayed the policy’s significance.  Despite the fact that HUD’s FOIA policy allows political appointees to weigh in on sensitive requests, the IG accepted the agency’s assertion that “political appointees have a limited role in request reviews and no role in the decision-making regarding the documents to be released to the requester.”

HUD’s FOIA policy is similar to the secret policies that we uncovered at the Department of Defense and the Department of the Treasury, and its impact is equally harmful.   Specifically, it usurps the authority of career FOIA professionals, delays and/or prevents the release of requested records, and further erodes the public’s trust in government.

 

**HUD’s policy document for sensitive requests includes a URL and is dated “9/16/2010,” but that link does not work.  Nor were we able to locate the document on the HUD website or via the “Wayback Machine” or Google.

HUDFOIA1
HUDFOIA3

HUDFOIA4

 

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: ,

National Law Journal: Group Wants Justices to Lift Limits on Political Giving

July 18, 2013 by

Group Wants Justices to Lift Limits on Political Giving

By Marcia Coyle      July 17, 2013

For its first brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Cause of Action Institute picked a controversial cause: an end to certain limits on individual contributions to federal candidates, political action committees and political party committees.

McCutcheon and Republican National Committee v. Federal Election Commission offers the Supreme Court an another opportunity to deregulate money in elections following its much criticized ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010. The justices will hear arguments in the case this fall.

The Cause of Action Institute, which describes itself as a nonprofit, nonpartisan government-accountability organization “that fights to protect economic opportunity when federal regulations, spending and cronyism threaten it,” has joined the legal fight with an amicus brief supporting challengers Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee (RNC).

“This is their first Supreme Court brief, but it’s right down their alley,” said Barnaby Zall of Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani in Rockville, Md., counsel of record on the amicus brief. “They are an organization focused on government accountability and they work mainly with the [Freedom of Information Act]. They understand disclosure and rules. They looked at this issue as combining lots of issues that affected them.”

Under federal campaign finance laws, there are two types of limits on political contributions by individuals. Base limits restrict the amount an individual may contribute to a particular candidate committee ($2,600 per election); national party committee ($32,400 per calendar year); state, district and local party committee ($10,000 per calendar year (combined limit)); and political action committee (PAC) ($5,000 per calendar year). Aggregate limits restrict the total contributions that individuals may make in a biennial—two-year—election cycle.

McCutcheon and the RNC urge the justices to apply the most searching scrutiny—strict scrutiny—to those biennial limits and find that the limits violate the First Amendment. Under the aggregate limits, individuals may contribute $48,600 to candidate committees and $74,600 to non-candidate committees, of which no more than $48,600 may go to non-national party committees (state, district and local party committees (combined) and PACs).

The amicus brief by Cause of Action Institute walks the justices through the last 40 years of changes in the campaign spending and disclosure environment. Those changes, it argues, undercut the original rationale for the aggregate limits.

“In an era in which parties and campaigns compete not only with other like entities, but also with independent voices armed with the latest technology and an almost limitless ability to uncover, analyze and publish contributor information, does the rationale for the current aggregate limits survive?” the brief asks.

The rationale for the limits, according to Congress in 1974, was to prevent circumvention of the limits on individual contributions. As the Supreme Court said in its landmark campaign finance ruling, Buckley v. Valeo: “Congress was surely entitled to conclude that disclosure was only a partial measure, and that contribution ceilings were a necessary legislative concomitant to deal with the reality or appearance of corruption inherent in a system permitting unlimited financial contributions, even when the identities of the contributors and the amounts of their contributions are fully disclosed.”

But what was true of disclosure in 1974 is not true today, the institute posits in one of two key arguments.

“ ‘Fully disclosed,’ in 1974, meant buried in a mountain of paper filings” in a few offices, according to the institute, with little public access.

“Today, there are effective and efficient public and private alternatives, all designed to disclose and publicize any evasions of the contribution limit,” the brief argues. “The Justice Department, the media, and private organizations all use these technologies to monitor, in real-time, campaigns and donors, and release the results on the Internet free of charge, in formats expressly designed to be used by relatively unsophisticated analysts and observers.”

That difference between today and 40 years ago, the brief adds, demonstrates that the aggregate limits are no longer tailored to the problem that Congress was addressing.

And then there is Citizens United. That 5-4 decision lifting the ban on corporate and union independent spending, along with other court decisions, has created alternative methods for individuals to speak during campaigns, the institute says. That new freedom to speak has removed the major incentive to circumvent individual contribution limits.

“Those alternative means are readily available to cautious donors now,” the brief explains. “These lawful, compliant expenditures can be made by one speaker or in conjunction with others.”

The effect of the limits today is “to punish those few donors who want to support more candidates directly than the aggregate limits permit. Thus the aggregate limits are simply another attempt to prevent persons of wealth (or those who seek to promote challengers or innovative candidates) from associating in the manner they choose.”

Daniel Epstein, the institute’s executive director and former investigative counsel for the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said the aggregate limits do not protect against the most serious type of political corruption today—so-called dark money contributions for which the identity of the donor does not have to be disclosed.

“We don’t usually write amicus briefs,” Epstein said. “Most of our litigation is directly representing clients. The reason we were motivated to work with Zall is he is obviously an election law expert and we tend to be free market. You want a marketplace of ideas not just in terms of economic transactions but in terms of speech as well. One of the things we basically argue is that the contribution limits are both over-inclusive and under-inclusive. It would have a potential limit on the kinds of discussions that we viewed as important. Minority groups, bloggers and others might be adversely affected by the limits.”

The ability of someone who wants to violate the law has diminished substantially, according to Zall. “That is recognized by the Department of Justice and others, but the interpretations of the law have not changed” he said, adding that the institute’s brief brings “a realization that the old interpretations don’t work in the new environment. What they end up doing is causing more problems than they would solve.”

 

 

Filed Under: News Tagged With: ,

Related Documents: Investigation of DHS Deputy IG Charles Edwards

July 9, 2013 by

We sent a FOIA Request to DHS OIG on March 27, 2013 asking for documents related to 3 prior FOIA requests, travel records and any complaints against Deputy IG Charles Edwards, and documents disclosed to Andrew Becker, a journalist at the Center for Investigative Reporting.

After not receiving the documents we requested, we filed a lawsuit for the records on June 11, 2013.

Based on information from our insiders, we sent a letter asking President Obama to remove Deputy IG Edwards on July 1, 2013 for:

  1. Failing to appropriately conduct investigations (including whitewashing a report on the solicitation of prostitutes by the Secret Service in Colombia)
  2. Improper travel costs. Edwards would conduct “site checks” at a nearby DHS OIG office in Miramar, Florida but his actual intent was to attend classes for his doctorate degree at Nova Southeastern University. Edwards also took two separate three-day trips to a remote DHS office in Puerto Rico and stayed in resort hotels.
  3. Nepotism for hiring his wife and promoting those who approved her five month telework request.
  4. Destruction of federal records
  5. Disregard of the Freedom of Information Act and the removal of records
  6. Intimidating and retaliating against employees

DHS OIG finally sent us a partial response on July 2, 2013 and the documents confirm what our whistleblowers were saying about Deputy IG Edwards.

  1. The travel records show that Edwards stayed in a hotel closer to his school than to the DHS OIG Office and he even received a special rate for “Nova SE University.”
  2. They also confirm that Edwards took two separate three-day trips to a remote DHS office in Puerto Rico and stayed in resort hotels.
  3. Telephone records show that Edwards’ wife, Madhuri Edwards, primarily used her government issued international phone to call Charles Edwards while on telework in India.

 

Cause of Action’s Executive Director Dan Epstein discussed Deputy IG Charles Edwards on CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper.

 

FOIA Requests

Production: Internal Complaints (October 31, 2013)

Interim DHS OIG FOIA Production (July 2, 2013 )

DHS OIG FOIA Complaint (June 11, 2013)

FOIA Request (March 27, 2013)

Letters

Cause of Action letter to President Obama: Remove DHS Deputy IG Charles Edwards (July 1, 2013)

Filed Under: Investigation Tagged With: ,

White House and Treasury Department Politicize FOIA

June 24, 2013 by

In 2010, the Associated Press (AP) uncovered that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was blatantly politicizing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process by having senior political appointees review requests.  Additionally, it was revealed that documents implicating “White House equities” had been sent by DHS to the White House Counsel’s Office for review, but what are White House equities? And who is defining the term?

In subsequent testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Mary Ellen Callahan, Chief Privacy Officer for DHS, was asked about the meaning of White House equities by Rep. Jason Chaffetz:

Mr. Chaffetz. Let me read another paragraph. “Two exceptions required White House review, request to see  documents about spending under the $862 billion stimulus law, and the calendars for cabinet members, those required White House review,” is that correct?

Ms. Callahan. The calendars–anything that has White House equities would require White House review. That is—-

Mr. Chaffetz. What is a White House equity? What does that mean?

Ms. Callahan. In the circumstances with the Secretary’s calendar to the extent that she was in the White House, or that was a–disclosing some sort of element. This is a typical process of referring FOIA requests to different departments. It may be their underlying records. That is a standard process throughout the—-

Mr. Chaffetz. The other part of that is under the $862 billion stimulus; is that correct? Is that part of the White House equity? It says “Two exceptions required White House review. Request to see documents about spending under the $862 billion stimulus law,” is that correct?

Ms. Callahan. That is correct.

Mr. Chaffetz. Why? Why does that require a special White House review?

Ms. Callahan. Sir, I’m the chief FOIA officer; I’m not a policy person in this area.

Mr. Chaffetz. So is that a directive that you got from the White House?

Ms. Callahan. I believe I was instructed by the Office of the Secretary to do that, and we processed it—-

Three years after the above testimony, we have confirmed that Congressman Chaffetz was right about the source of authority that required “special White House review.” In January 2009, the President issued his Executive Order on FOIA and transparency, and then Attorney General Eric Holder issued a March 2009 FOIA memo encouraging disclosure. Both of these memos were made public and lauded as standards for federal agencies. But in April 2009, a previously undisclosed memo was sent from White House Counsel’s Office to Department and Agency General Counsels, reminding them to send to the White House all records involving “White House equities” collected in response to any document request.  According to FOIA attorneys at multiple federal agencies, this White House consultation policy is still in effect.

The practice of sending agency records to the White House for review is not altogether new. In 1993, for example, the Department of Justice (DOJ) instructed agencies to send “White-House-originated” records to the White House Counsel’s Office whenever located in response to FOIA requests. However, the current White House consultation policy is substantially broader in scope.   First, this memo expands the types of documents being sent to the White House to include Congressional committee requests, GAO requests, and judicial subpoenas. Additionally, the documents to be referred need not “originate” from the White House, as the DOJ advised in 1993, but need only involve “White House equities,” an undefined term that could be construed to include any records in which the White House might be interested.   Indeed, that is exactly the type of referral that appeared to have occurred at DHS, and which is likely still occurring throughout the Executive Branch. In sum, the White House Counsel’s office is potentially receiving and reviewing, and actually demanding access to information they previously would not have been able to review under FOIA. Cause of Action is now seeking to obtain documentary evidence of this practice via FOIA requests to multiple agencies.

 

The 2009 memo that Cause of Action obtained:

White House Equities

How the Treasury Department and the IRS Stall FOIA Requests

  • Treasury’s Departmental Offices (DO) and the IRS gives extra scrutiny to FOIA requests from all media requesters, delaying the release of records and usurping the regulatory authority of FOIA officials
  • 13 requests to DO were marked for sensitive review were sent to the White House for review in 2009

In the wake of the DHS FOIA scandal, Senator Grassley and Congressman Issa sent a joint August 25, 2010 letter to 29 Inspectors General, asking them to investigate: (a) whether FOIA requests were given more scrutiny based upon the identity of the requester, and (b) the extent to which political appointees were systematically made aware of the requests and participate in FOIA decision-making. Our research found that only 7 of the 29 Inspectors General released their findings publicly, and none of those reports revealed any wrongdoing.

However, according to the Treasury Inspector General, both the Treasury’s main office, called Treasury’s Departmental Offices, as well as the IRS established formalized “sensitive review” processes in late 2009 that singled out media requesters and slowed down the FOIA process. At Treasury DO, a committee of senior Treasury officials reviewed requests deemed to be “sensitive” before career FOIA personnel were permitted to release any records. Notably, multiple government sources have confirmed that all FOIA requests submitted by the media were required to be forwarded to the review committee regardless of the content of the requested records. This discriminatory policy, which delayed the release of records and usurped the regulatory authority of FOIA officials, is all the more nefarious because it was established at a time when Americans were seeking to obtain vital information about Treasury’s response to a severe financial crisis.

At the IRS, any FOIA request submitted by “major media” would be labeled as a “sensitive case,” and sent to the Chief Disclosure Officer and the Director of Communications, Liaison, and Disclosure, who would decide if documents were “appropriately disclosed.”

Interestingly, in response to a FOIA request that Cause of action sent to the IRS, the IRS admitted internally that it had forgotten to put us in a “Sensitive Case Report.”

IRS Sensitive Review

According to the IG report, none of the other offices within Treasury had established a “sensitive review” process or were cited as sending requests to the White House for review.

Broken Promises on Transparency Continue

The Obama Administration cannot credibly claim to be the most transparent in history when it publicly issues memos about the presumption of openness in the FOIA process, for example, but then instructs agencies in a non-public memo to refer all records with “White House equities” to the White House for review. The White House is by its nature political and it is not subject to FOIA. Thus, it should not be interfering with the FOIA process. Not only is the FOIA process significantly stalled by this White House review  — a fact that agencies zealously keep secret from requesters — but it permits the White House’s political interests to trump the correct application of the FOIA, a disclosure statute whose purpose is ensure an informed citizenry. In sum, this Administration is more concerned with appearing to be transparent than with actually being transparent.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: , , ,

Cause of Action Memos Impugn Obama Transparency Pledge

June 20, 2013 by

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                           

June 20, 2013

Cause of Action Memos Impugn Obama Transparency Pledge

CoA obtains previously unreleased White House Memo detailing undisclosed FOIA policies

WASHINGTON – Cause of Action (CoA), a government accountability organization, today released a previously undisclosed copy of an April 2009 White House memo sent to all Executive Department and Agency General Counsels urging them to run all third-party requests dealing with “White House equities”– including congressional and Freedom of Information Act requests (FOIA)–through the White House Counsel’s office. This memo was sent just months after the President issued his January 2009 Executive Order on FOIA and transparency, and Attorney General Eric Holder’s March 2009 memo on FOIA—both of which were made public. According to the Department of Justice this memo is still in effect.

Additionally, CoA also obtained a previously unreleased copy of a November 2010 Treasury Inspector General report, revealing two concerning aspects of how the IRS and Treasury handle FOIA requests:

  •  The IRS treats “major media” requests as “special review,” therefore applying an additional layer of scrutiny and slowing down the FOIA  process.
  • The White House may have reviewed Treasury Department FOIA productions and claimed privileges before documents were released to the requestor.

 

Dan Epstein, Cause of Action’s executive director, commented on the consequences of these findings:

“We are concerned that the President’s transparency pledges and removal of the Office of Political Affairs may have all been a charade to not only politicize the Freedom of Information Act but to use the White House legal office to politicize the executive branch. The White House is not an agency subject to FOIA and should have no control over the FOIA process. The White House policy violates the intent of FOIA, which requires that federal agencies promptly respond to requests.  The broad claim for documents relating to “White House equities” is unprecedented.

How are we to trust an Administration that has gone after the press and politicized the nation’s most important tool for knowing what its government is up to?”

Related Documents:

White House Memo 

Treasury Inspector General Report

 

 

Filed Under: Press Release Tagged With: , , ,

FoxNews.com: Obama administration pledged transparency, but slowed document requests, memos show

June 20, 2013 by

Obama administration pledged transparency, but slowed document requests, memos show

By Judson Berger    Published June 20, 2013

Even as the freshly minted Obama administration was pledging a “new era of open government” in 2009, officials were quietly adding new rules that had the potential to slow down public requests for documents.

Those rules, detailed in memos reviewed by FoxNews.com, could even trip up present-day efforts to dig into the IRS’ practice of targeting conservative groups. The rules detailed in the memos largely emanated from the Treasury Department and, specifically, the IRS.

“It would seem to repudiate this notion that this is going to be the most transparent government in history,” said Dan Epstein, executive director of Cause of Action, the group that first obtained the memos.

The memos follow reports about the administration’s use of private email accounts, and coincide with ongoing debate about government transparency — particularly with recent disclosures about widespread surveillance programs.

Epstein said the document request procedures are “troubling” since the media are “really concerned about the limits of government power.”

According to the documents, the Treasury Department in 2009 set up an additional review for requests involving “sensitive information,” which covered a broad range of items. The White House sometimes got involved, slowing down the process. The IRS also acknowledged having another review process for requests from “major media,” but not for requests from private individuals.

Members of the media often try to obtain documents not readily available by citing a law known as the Freedom of Information Act. The Treasury Department, though, in late 2009 erected speed bumps for some so-called FOIA requests.

The rules were detailed in a November 2010 memo and report sent from the Treasury inspector general to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

The documents showed the Treasury Department set up an additional “formal level of review” for requests for “sensitive information.” This category would cover everything from emails to memos to calendars to travel logs for top department officials, legal advisers, senior advisers and others.

Once a request was deemed “sensitive,” it would then go before a “review committee,” made up of officials from several Treasury offices.

Further, the document said a special report would be prepared for IRS requests from “major media.” This covers requests from traditional news media as well as bloggers, and according to the report covered information that “was likely to attract news media or congressional interest, involved large dollar amounts, or involved unique or novel issues.”

This report would then be sent to a higher-up in the division who decided whether the material should be disclosed.

The report repeatedly said that, in most cases, political appointees were not involved in these decisions, and that the agencies have no procedures to allow that.

But Epstein said these rules could cause problems as Congress and the media dig deeper into the origin of the IRS practice of singling out conservative groups for additional scrutiny.

He pointed to another memo, dated April 15, 2009, from then-White House Counsel Greg Craig that urged “executive agencies” to consult with his office “on all document requests that may involve documents with White House equities.” Craig said this pertains to everything from FOIA requests to congressional requests to subpoenas.

This practice apparently dates back to 1993. The Treasury IG memo cited this, and described the White House involvement as “minimal and limited.” However, the report also said the White House involvement “was responsible in several cases for adding a significant processing delay,” which in Treasury’s case slowed them down.

“It actually is heavily ironic in the realm of transparency,” Epstein said.

He pointed to edicts and memos early on in the first term of the administration stressing transparency. Obama issued a January 2009 directive calling for an “unprecedented level of openness.”

Attorney General Eric Holder in March 2009 directed all Executive Branch departments to use a “presumption of openness” when dealing with FOIA requests.

To that end, the administration has instituted several other transparency initiatives. It has followed through on requiring Cabinet secretaries to hold Internet town hall discussions, set up a comprehensive website to track stimulus spending, and set up a national declassification center.

 

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , ,