close X
07/6/2018

OMB Confirms Agencies Required to Disclose Earmarks, Declines to Enforce

The White House Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has confirmed that all executive branch agencies are required to disclose attempts by congressional and other outside force to influence the merit-based decision-making process for federal spending.  These efforts to earmark federal spending must be disclosed on agency websites within thirty days of their receipt.  But OMB has refused to issue new guidelines directing agencies to comply with the rule.

OMB’s reaffirmation came in a letter during litigation declining Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) and Demand Progress’s 2015 petition for rulemaking that asked the agency to enforce President George W. Bush’s Executive Order 13,457.

Background

In 2008, during the congressional debate over the earmark ban, President Bush issued EO 13,457, both to take a position in the ongoing debate and in an attempt to foreclose members of Congress from evading the ban by going directly to agencies.  Part of the order relied on transparency as a tool to dissuade these “executive branch earmarks” by requiring agencies to publish efforts to influence their decision making on their website within thirty days of receiving such communications.  The order also directed agencies not to fund these “non-statutory” earmarks.  Shortly after, OMB issued a memorandum instructing agencies how to comply with the order while implementing recent appropriations law.

CoA Institute had concerns that agencies were not complying with the order and conducted an investigation into which agencies were properly disclosing executive branch earmarks; only the Departments of Justice and Energy had published any meaningful content on their website.

In 2015, CoA Institute joined with Demand Progress and asked President Obama’s White House to depoliticize federal spending decisions by upholding the order.  We filed a petition for rulemaking asking the Obama OMB “to issue a rule ensuring the continuing force and effect of Executive Order 13457[.]”

In November 2017, after two years of not receiving a response, CoA Institute sued OMB over its failure to act on the petition.  With a new administration now in the White House, we urged President Trump’s OMB to issue updated guidance ensuring that agencies followed the order and disclosed earmarking efforts.

OMB Declines Petition, Confirms Executive Order Still in Effect

Due to the lawsuit, OMB has finally responded.  Although OMB declined to issue a new memorandum, it confirmed that “EO 13457 Remains In Force [because] No Executive Order has been issued that displaces, alters, or withdraws EO 13457 and [because] OMB is also not aware of any judicial decision vacating EO 13457.”


Therefore, agencies are still obligated both to refuse to fund non-statutory earmarks and disclose any attempts to influence their decisions within thirty days.  The Trump Administration, however, refuses to make them live up to their responsibilities.

James Valvo is Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor at Cause of Action Institute.  You can follow him on Twitter @JamesValvo.

Blog, Media Learn More
11/2/2017

CoA Institute Sues OMB, Compelling it to Take Transparency Policy Seriously

Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) has sued the White House Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for failing to respond to two petitions for rulemaking that CoA Institute submitted to the agency.  These two petitions—both aimed at increasing government transparency—were filed during the Obama Administration but were ignored. One petition for rulemaking focused on the OMB’s outdated Freedom of Information Act fee guidelines while the other focused on an executive order related to earmarking. We hope these lawsuits will spur the Trump Administration to action to increase the public’s ability to know what its government is up to.

Petition for Rulemaking on OMB’s Outdated FOIA Fee Guidelines

The Freedom of Information Act requires agencies to produce records on a reduced fee schedule if the requester qualifies as a “representative of the news media” or other favored category.  The FOIA requires agencies to issue records free of charge if the information is in the public interest and the requester has a means to distribute it.  Unfortunately, agencies often use these fee provisions as a mechanism to block requesters that are doing rigorous oversight of the agency.

As information technology advanced over the past two decades, Congress recognized that journalism was changing in fundamental ways and that citizen journalists and nonprofit organizations were just as vital to conducting government oversight as the traditional news media.  That’s why, in the Open Government Act of 2007, Congress provided a statutory definition of a “representative of the news media” that expressly noted that “as methods of news delivery evolve (for example, the adoption of the electronic dissemination of newspapers through telecommunications services), such alternative media shall be considered to be news-media entities.”[1]

But the FOIA also requires OMB to develop and maintain guidelines on FOIA fee issues and it requires agencies to conform their regulations to OMB’s guidelines.  In 1987, OMB issued its one and only guidance document on FOIA fees and in that document it requires “representatives of the news media” to work for organizations that are “organized and operated to publish or broadcast news to the public.”  The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) attempted to use this outdated standard against CoA Institute to deny us a preferable fee status and thus drive up the cost of our oversight of that agency.  We took the FTC to the D.C. Circuit and won.  The opinion in that case explained that the “organized and operated” standard was no longer proper.[2]

Yet ten years after Congress changed the statutory standard and two years after the D.C. Circuit directed that the “organized and operated” standard was no longer viable, dozens of agencies still employ it and OMB still has not updated its 1987 FOIA fee guidance.

In an effort to spur OMB to reform its outmoded guidance and to move all agencies toward compliance with the statute, CoA Institute filed a petition for rulemaking with OMB in June 2016.  The agency has not responded to that petition and we were forced to sue to bring the issue to resolution.

Petition for Rulemaking on Executive Order 13457

In 2008, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13457 to pressure Congress to reform its profligate earmarking practices.  The order required, inter alia, that executive-branch agencies proactively disclose any attempts by members of Congress or their staff to influence discretionary spending decisions the agencies were making.  President Bush directed OMB to ensure that agencies complied with the order.

Through an investigation, CoA Institute was able to establish that OMB understood Executive Order 13457 to apply to both legislative earmarks (i.e., spending directives in statute and committee reports) and executive branch earmarks (i.e., efforts by outside forces to pressure agencies to make certain spending decisions).  CoA Institute’s investigation also revealed that very few agencies were complying with the order; the Department of Energy was a notable exception.

In an effort to spur the Obama Administration to implement Executive Order 13457, CoA Institute joined with Demand Progress and filed a petition for rulemaking at OMB asking it “to issue a rule ensuring the continuing force and effect of Executive Order 13457, Protecting American Taxpayers From Government Spending on Wasteful Earmarks[.]”  More than two years have passed since we filed the petition and OMB has not responded.

Conclusion

The White House Office of Management and Budget sits at a unique place in the federal administrative state.  It has the opportunity to put in place and require adherence to cross-agency rules that can increase or decrease government transparency.  Ensuring that FOIA fees are not improperly used to block agency oversight and requiring proactive disclosure of congressional attempts to influence agency discretionary spending decisions are two ways OMB can make a difference.  CoA Institute has filed suit today to compel them to take these responsibilities seriously.

James Valvo is counsel and senior policy advisor at Cause of Action Institute.  He was instrumental in crafting both petitions for rulemaking and the lawsuit discussed in this post.  You can follow him on Twitter @JamesValvo.

[1] 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)

[2] Cause of Action v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 799 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

FOIA, Blog Learn More
06/2/2016

Cause of Action Institute Petitions OMB to Update FOIA Fee Guide

Today, Cause of Action Institute filed a petition for rulemaking with the White House Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), urging it to update its obsolete guidance document that federal agencies rely on when making FOIA fee determinations.  The petition seeks to implement Cause of Action Institute’s landmark legal win in Cause of Action v. Federal Trade Commission where the D.C. Circuit ruled OMB’s guidance conflicts with the FOIA statute.

Background

In 1986, Congress passed, and President Reagan signed into law, the Freedom of Information Reform Act of 1986.  Section 1803 of the Act directed OMB to provide a uniform schedule of fees for all federal agencies and guidelines for how to apply that schedule.  On March 28, 1987, OMB finalized those guidelines.  Although Congress has amended the FOIA several times since 1986, OMB has never updated the guidance.

The failure by OMB to update its guidelines has resulted in costly, time-consuming litigation between agencies and requestors.  For example, in 2011 and 2012, CoA Institute sent a series of FOIA requests to the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) requesting access to records, to be classified as a representative of the news media, and for a public interest fee waiver.  The FTC refused the CoA Institute requests for fee classification and waiver by relying on its outdated FOIA fee regulations, which in turn relied on the outdated OMB guidance.  After the district court refused to apply the statutory standard, CoA Institute appealed the case to the D.C. Circuit, which ruled that many of the regulatory and judicial standards that had built up over time were in conflict with the statute as amended by the Open Government Act of 2007.

Petition

Blog Learn More