Any papers generated while on the public payroll should be owned by the public. That Congress have exempted themselves from examination is a serious breach of their responsibility to the public.
32
AS the NYT Picks comment about insider information points out. The American political system is a shambles and the laughing stock of most other advanced countries. Nobody is above law is a simple standard but one one that the US congress seems to make sure it never needs to meet it seems.
Nobody is forced to become a politician or their staffer/aid so why should they have special get of jail free cards ? Nobody is interested in constituent mail and troll who wrote comment knows that. What they are interested in is what sort of backroom deals congress is making on their behalf.
It's a joke but the vast majority of american citizens are completely ignorant of the fact that the joke is on them. Which is the way congress likes it. You get the government you deserve so do something about it.
Nobody is forced to become a politician or their staffer/aid so why should they have special get of jail free cards ? Nobody is interested in constituent mail and troll who wrote comment knows that. What they are interested in is what sort of backroom deals congress is making on their behalf.
It's a joke but the vast majority of american citizens are completely ignorant of the fact that the joke is on them. Which is the way congress likes it. You get the government you deserve so do something about it.
9
I would really like to read Trey Gowdy's emails.
22
In reply to Larry Hoffman, Middle Village:
You wrote, "Is there no way that perhaps a panel of Judges could be empowered to read the documents and allow the release of specific information that would allow both sides a degree of personal safety and satisfaction? Or is the idea of a reasonable solution to far from the reach of humans today?"
The foregoing assumes that there will be documents available for judges to review, but our recent experience with Hillary's destruction of emails (pleading that it was not then "illegal" and besides, "They're only emails."), and the fact that there has never been any stricture against legislators who decide - like Hillary - that certain documents are "personal" thus leaving them free to destroy them if they wish, clearly shows that there likely will be no documents to review - especially in the most sensitive cases - and therefore your suggested solution would be moot.
You wrote, "Is there no way that perhaps a panel of Judges could be empowered to read the documents and allow the release of specific information that would allow both sides a degree of personal safety and satisfaction? Or is the idea of a reasonable solution to far from the reach of humans today?"
The foregoing assumes that there will be documents available for judges to review, but our recent experience with Hillary's destruction of emails (pleading that it was not then "illegal" and besides, "They're only emails."), and the fact that there has never been any stricture against legislators who decide - like Hillary - that certain documents are "personal" thus leaving them free to destroy them if they wish, clearly shows that there likely will be no documents to review - especially in the most sensitive cases - and therefore your suggested solution would be moot.
4
I do think the e-mails of members of the Benghazi committee would be of interest. Are they available?
19
Yes, congress is disgraceful in placing themselves above the law and perpetuating non-disclosure of their administrative and financial affairs. And, of course, that covers both political parties.
As an example of insider trading and guarding that privacy, consider Diane Feinstein and husband Richard Blum; notably Blum's profiting on the Post Office leases and military contracts. Ms. Feinstein says they keep their financial affairs separate, but that just means they can fill out separate tax forms, it says nothing of sharing insider information. And she was one of the first to condemn Ed Snowden for his disclosure. They have built immense personal fortunes while in office and certainly don't want anyone reviewing the info on their origins.
We need an Edward Snowden Brigade--a committed and patriotic group of Nerds who will scan the records of Congressmen, the Supreme Court, and the Executive Branch. A subsequent report on their findings will demonstrate how far our country has fallen.
As an example of insider trading and guarding that privacy, consider Diane Feinstein and husband Richard Blum; notably Blum's profiting on the Post Office leases and military contracts. Ms. Feinstein says they keep their financial affairs separate, but that just means they can fill out separate tax forms, it says nothing of sharing insider information. And she was one of the first to condemn Ed Snowden for his disclosure. They have built immense personal fortunes while in office and certainly don't want anyone reviewing the info on their origins.
We need an Edward Snowden Brigade--a committed and patriotic group of Nerds who will scan the records of Congressmen, the Supreme Court, and the Executive Branch. A subsequent report on their findings will demonstrate how far our country has fallen.
6
This is a serious problem that extends far beyond the papers of the legislative branch. Warren G. Harding's family was able to keep a lid on his love letters from 1910-1920, until they leaked out in 2014. Presidential libraries, which are heavily supported with public monies, burnish the cults of personality of our presidents. They are "Made in USA" versions of Lenin's Tomb:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2015/09/19/more-truth-les...
Two pieces of advice for Ms. Coe:
1) Go ahead and sue Marquette and the senator's daughter. Nixon's papers only became available after years of litigation. If the senator's daughter has a really good reason for keeping the papers private, let her tell it to a judge - and to the American people. The American Historical Association might help with the search for a lawyer.
2) In the modern world - even before email - documents are rarely unique. Secretaries keep carbons. Writers forward blind copies. Historians and biographers make notes. It was the existence of copies that broke the seal on the Harding letters. An extensive search in public and private archives for other McCarthy correspondence would uncover much of the information that is hidden away in the Marquette stash. Furthermore, the personal papers are the letters that the correspondent has received - and what you really want are the letters the correspondent wrote.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2015/09/19/more-truth-les...
Two pieces of advice for Ms. Coe:
1) Go ahead and sue Marquette and the senator's daughter. Nixon's papers only became available after years of litigation. If the senator's daughter has a really good reason for keeping the papers private, let her tell it to a judge - and to the American people. The American Historical Association might help with the search for a lawyer.
2) In the modern world - even before email - documents are rarely unique. Secretaries keep carbons. Writers forward blind copies. Historians and biographers make notes. It was the existence of copies that broke the seal on the Harding letters. An extensive search in public and private archives for other McCarthy correspondence would uncover much of the information that is hidden away in the Marquette stash. Furthermore, the personal papers are the letters that the correspondent has received - and what you really want are the letters the correspondent wrote.
21
Since some Congressional records are not covered by FOIA or Presidential Records Act and Federal Records Act. Introduced as H.R. 1233 and the general public has little interest in Government records generally, trying to get Congress to pass a law that will bring its "personal" records under FOIA and the Presidential Records Act and Federal Records Act. Introduced as H.R. 1233 is next to impossible.
"House and Senate rules define official records as any records, regardless of format, that are created or received in the course of the business conducted by congressional committees. These official committee records are eventually transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration where they are preserved as the historical record of the work of Congress. In contrast, the rules designate the papers of a Member’s congressional office as being outside the scope of official records. Members maintain ownership of records created in the course of their congressional service, are responsible for effectively managing them, and determine the ultimate disposition of these papers. Members’ papers comprise both textual and electronic records and include things like personal notes, legislative research files, photos and correspondence with constituents."(http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2015/04/archiving-the-personal-...
"House and Senate rules define official records as any records, regardless of format, that are created or received in the course of the business conducted by congressional committees. These official committee records are eventually transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration where they are preserved as the historical record of the work of Congress. In contrast, the rules designate the papers of a Member’s congressional office as being outside the scope of official records. Members maintain ownership of records created in the course of their congressional service, are responsible for effectively managing them, and determine the ultimate disposition of these papers. Members’ papers comprise both textual and electronic records and include things like personal notes, legislative research files, photos and correspondence with constituents."(http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2015/04/archiving-the-personal-...
1
Good luck getting Hillary's papers from her days as a Senator. You sure won't get her emails.
1
Lots of luck expecting that from the congress!
3
The change in FOIA laws are not just for looking for mistakes but also looking good and great deeds. It would be illuminating to know what was going with Gaylord Nelson when he proposed those environmental laws. It would be wonderful to know what was going on with Everet Dirkson when he supported the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968. For those interested in banking regulation, it would be enlightening to know why Peter Norbeck gave so much lattitude to Ferdinand Pecora.
Much if not all of my examples might be public or otherwise known. But if they are not, a bit of American history is secret.
For better or worse, the release of those documents might reveal venal and mean spirited decisions. But it also hides the best examples of our American character.
Much if not all of my examples might be public or otherwise known. But if they are not, a bit of American history is secret.
For better or worse, the release of those documents might reveal venal and mean spirited decisions. But it also hides the best examples of our American character.
I applaud the author's call for transparency and believe the legislative branch should have to live by the same sunshine laws it imposes on others.
However, she is a little flippant when she invokes Ann Coulter as a representative of all of Senator McCarthy's defenders and says they "still regurgitate old 'evidence' from sources long discredited."
It was that thoughtless old reactionary (I'm being sarcastic) Daniel Patrick Moynihan who wrote: "Venona intercepts contained overwhelming proof of the activities of Soviet spy networks in America, complete with names, dates, places, and deeds."
You don't have to be Ann Coulter to believe that Senator McCarthy had at least part of a point; you don't have to be Alexis Coe to believe Senator McCarthy was reckless with people's reputations and lives. As with so many important matters, the truth lies in the grey space in between the extremes.
But given the tone of this op-ed, I am not looking forward to the author's forthcoming book as an exemplar of even-handed, dispassionate scholarship. I would be happy to be proven wrong.
However, she is a little flippant when she invokes Ann Coulter as a representative of all of Senator McCarthy's defenders and says they "still regurgitate old 'evidence' from sources long discredited."
It was that thoughtless old reactionary (I'm being sarcastic) Daniel Patrick Moynihan who wrote: "Venona intercepts contained overwhelming proof of the activities of Soviet spy networks in America, complete with names, dates, places, and deeds."
You don't have to be Ann Coulter to believe that Senator McCarthy had at least part of a point; you don't have to be Alexis Coe to believe Senator McCarthy was reckless with people's reputations and lives. As with so many important matters, the truth lies in the grey space in between the extremes.
But given the tone of this op-ed, I am not looking forward to the author's forthcoming book as an exemplar of even-handed, dispassionate scholarship. I would be happy to be proven wrong.
The problem is not with transparency alone; the legislators are not fools (unless one holds a different opinion than yours)- they know that their e-mails, letters, etc. will be cherry picked to boost whatever narrative the researcher desires. Further, they know that any correspondence to the contrary of said narrative will be dutifully ignored. The press libels people all the time to promote narrative, why wouldn't researchers?
3
What is your point? My correspondence as a state employee can be accessed by FOI application (and has been). The results can then be cherry-picked by the requester and I have no recourse. If this is unacceptable for a legislator, then why it is acceptable for me?
8
It has always amazed me how when the politicians write ANY law they nearly ALWAYS make sure to exempt themselves for the provisions that they impose on the rest of us. Now in this case I happen to agree with the Senator's Daughter. As a child she had to live AND survive her Father's exploits and foul deeds. I can, totally, understand why in her lifetime she would NOT want to be forced ( and considering the power of today's media) to live through it again.
Okay, on the other hand there are the Children and Families of all those accused by the Senator and who's lives the man ruined. How do we reslolve THEIR right to access information that will clear their family names and perhaps bring moments of satisfaction to the survivors of McCarthy's insane arrogance?
Is there no way that perhaps a panel of Judges could be empowered to read the documents and allow the release of specific information that would allow both sides a degree of personal safety and satisfaction? Or is the idea of a reasonable solution to far from the reach of humans today?
Okay, on the other hand there are the Children and Families of all those accused by the Senator and who's lives the man ruined. How do we reslolve THEIR right to access information that will clear their family names and perhaps bring moments of satisfaction to the survivors of McCarthy's insane arrogance?
Is there no way that perhaps a panel of Judges could be empowered to read the documents and allow the release of specific information that would allow both sides a degree of personal safety and satisfaction? Or is the idea of a reasonable solution to far from the reach of humans today?
8
Who forced you to publish this story after the Benghazi hearings ?
If this article was published last week with a headline like "The Benghazi Committee's Double Standard on E-mails", that hearing probably would have been cancelled and the investigation concluded.
If this article was published last week with a headline like "The Benghazi Committee's Double Standard on E-mails", that hearing probably would have been cancelled and the investigation concluded.
7
Congress is made up of arrogant fools who are too self absorbed to even see the hypocrisy of their actions. Our "brand" of democracy is failing and I despair our ability to fix it.
18
Gee…I never knew that FOIA does not apply to the legislative branch! What is good for the executive ought to be good for the legislative branch! What have they to hide?
22
I appreciate the author's concerns and viewpoints but have to point out another issue.
I once worked for a member of congress and one of my responsibilities was answering constituent mail. Although there were many letters on policies there were even more letters requesting assistance with personal issues ranging from help in dealing with governmental agencies and private companies to asking aid in obtaining employment or seeking financial assistance because of some personal or family tragedy such as illness or death.
I would think that many of these people might not want what they considered to be personal affairs revealed to the general public. Obviously there are still many people alive who could have been writing to members of Congress when Joe McCarthy was serving there.
I would think that there would be so much correspondence that it would be virtually impossible for each piece to be looked over and names redacted.
And no matter what evidence is presented, there will always be right wingers like Ann Coulter who will claim McCarthy was right in his allegations the same way that we probably always have holocaust deniers. Even if there are letters where McCarthy says he made the whole thing up, they would still find a way to say this wasn't true.
I once worked for a member of congress and one of my responsibilities was answering constituent mail. Although there were many letters on policies there were even more letters requesting assistance with personal issues ranging from help in dealing with governmental agencies and private companies to asking aid in obtaining employment or seeking financial assistance because of some personal or family tragedy such as illness or death.
I would think that many of these people might not want what they considered to be personal affairs revealed to the general public. Obviously there are still many people alive who could have been writing to members of Congress when Joe McCarthy was serving there.
I would think that there would be so much correspondence that it would be virtually impossible for each piece to be looked over and names redacted.
And no matter what evidence is presented, there will always be right wingers like Ann Coulter who will claim McCarthy was right in his allegations the same way that we probably always have holocaust deniers. Even if there are letters where McCarthy says he made the whole thing up, they would still find a way to say this wasn't true.
8
Personal info can easily redacted. It's no reason to protect all mails unilaterally.
The only person for whom doing this simple task proved to be too difficult was Jeb Bush.
The only person for whom doing this simple task proved to be too difficult was Jeb Bush.
11
I really appreciate your post. It really enlightened me as to the nature of of FOIA request have on Congress.
That said, some accommodation could be made for the public. The public does have a right to know, but I submit that this has some limitations.
Some compromise is needed but the current situation is not rigther either.
That said, some accommodation could be made for the public. The public does have a right to know, but I submit that this has some limitations.
Some compromise is needed but the current situation is not rigther either.
4
Your point is humane, but when I write to a public official, I assume that anything I say is potentially a part of the official's public record. These aren't personal correspondence, because I don't know the official personally. I'm not confiding in a friend; I'm asking for help precisely because this person holds a public office. Public officials shouldn't be doing personal favors, and the kind of help they offer constituents shouldn't be secret. No one who needs the kind of help a legislator can offer should be embarrassed or ashamed if they've been let down by society or the legal system.
8
Congress exempts itself from nearly every law it passes.
10
Of course families and members of congress will not donate their papers to an archive if they can't set some limits. The writers subject, Mc Carthy, makes the case easier than it should be. Plenty of Kennedy family papers are still sealed but are in the archive where one day they will be available.
1
This should be a question asked of all congressional candidates:
Will you support a bill to apply the Freedom of Information Act to both houses of congress?
Will you support a bill to apply the Freedom of Information Act to both houses of congress?
4
They'll all say yes, a bill will never be introduced, and they'll never have to vote on it.
Good idea in theory, won't work in practice.
Good idea in theory, won't work in practice.
5
A President's official and policy correspondence and phone calls became public property.
Mrs Clinton, watch out!
But their definition can be stretched to include nearly anything he writes or any recording of his voice.
We are not there yet with senators, representatives, cabinet officers, and high-ranking public officials.
But assert a right, no matter what a stretch it is, long enough and recent history shows that it becomes reality
Mrs Clinton, watch out!
But their definition can be stretched to include nearly anything he writes or any recording of his voice.
We are not there yet with senators, representatives, cabinet officers, and high-ranking public officials.
But assert a right, no matter what a stretch it is, long enough and recent history shows that it becomes reality
1
I hadn't really thought about this before. It would be interesting to know how well the defenders of Truth, Justice and The American Way now conducting the Benghazi probe would fare under the kind of probing and prying that have been applied to the Clintons over the past couple of decades.
32
Well, the proceedings would probably be a lot shorter, because we'd have much better access to Secretary Clinton's correspondence while she served...
1
To Chris,
We didn't have a right to access the emails while she was serving. Nor do we have the right to access any gov official while they are serving.....unless there is an official inquiry etc.
We didn't have a right to access the emails while she was serving. Nor do we have the right to access any gov official while they are serving.....unless there is an official inquiry etc.
3
This is a very self-serving column. She cannot get the information she wants, so the law must be changed. Journalists and historians love FOIA, but it is very unclear that it benefits average citizens and improves government. Saying "they work for us" is as silly as poking a police officer with "you work for me."
In general, including government, everyone has the right to keep their communications private, whether voice, phone, text, mail, email, etc.
In general, including government, everyone has the right to keep their communications private, whether voice, phone, text, mail, email, etc.
Personal correspondence, perhaps, but not their professional correspondence. The column makes a very good case for why these documents are relevant to public debate, not to mention understanding of recent history.
15
I disagree. Elected officials are public servants. Their work and documentation thereof should be public record. McCarthy's vile paranoia and unfortunate influence was a case in point of the need to have access to what happened. If for no other reaso, to prevent if from happening again.
11
You doubt that FOIA benefits average citizens and improves government? I have to disagree.
In the short term, secrecy in government can be justified. Particularly in dealing with foreign powers, showing all our cards can be disastrous. But down the road? All secrecy accomplishes is protecting public officials from the consequences of mistakes and misdeeds. Great for them, not so good for us. After all, the best deterrence to official misdeeds isn't regulation, it's the certainty that not so very far down the road, it will lead to public disgrace.
As to your analogy of poking a police officer with "you work for us" -- that strays into a common distortion. Police officers, teachers, and government officials all work for the general public, not for a particular individual or subgroup in society. The problem with telling such a person what to do, under the guise of "working for us" is NOT that they don't work for us... it's that the speaker, invariably, is wildly overestimating the share of "us" that he/she, individually, represents.
In the short term, secrecy in government can be justified. Particularly in dealing with foreign powers, showing all our cards can be disastrous. But down the road? All secrecy accomplishes is protecting public officials from the consequences of mistakes and misdeeds. Great for them, not so good for us. After all, the best deterrence to official misdeeds isn't regulation, it's the certainty that not so very far down the road, it will lead to public disgrace.
As to your analogy of poking a police officer with "you work for us" -- that strays into a common distortion. Police officers, teachers, and government officials all work for the general public, not for a particular individual or subgroup in society. The problem with telling such a person what to do, under the guise of "working for us" is NOT that they don't work for us... it's that the speaker, invariably, is wildly overestimating the share of "us" that he/she, individually, represents.
3
I would like to see Darryl Issas' emails from the Nation Rifle Association. I want to know how much the NRA paid him to hold the phony Fast & Furious scandal hearings that they scripted. I would also like to know how much the NRA paid the rogue AFT agent in Phoenix to read their script.
29
I would like to see the emails between Harry Reid and the NRA as well.
1
We the People have gotten ourselves to a place where we are simply losing control of our own government. If the price of freedom is eternal vigilance we have been manipulated to spend our time throwing stones at each other rather than at the corruption so rampant in Washington DC (and, for that matter, in many statehouses).
We are intentionally divided against ourselves and as such are unable to concentrate on the real problem of rampant self-serving and public "servants" who speak with forked tongues.
We are intentionally divided against ourselves and as such are unable to concentrate on the real problem of rampant self-serving and public "servants" who speak with forked tongues.
14
While I understand the interest in the private deliberations of our legislature to remain private, that does interest should not attend to those private deliberations being thus forever.
The reasonable solution is for them to remain private for a set period of time after the retirement or death of the originator.
If we REALLY believed in open and transparent government, as we were once promised by Barack Obama, this would already be the law.
But we all know, just like the promise of Obama running the most open and transparent administration in history being a feel-good statement designed to quiet the seething masses, the embrace of open government by our political leaders is based on just exactly whose private communications are being discussed.
And what is equally sad, if not tragic, those in the press who are claim to be acting in the interests of The People in holding the politician accountable could actually care less.
The reasonable solution is for them to remain private for a set period of time after the retirement or death of the originator.
If we REALLY believed in open and transparent government, as we were once promised by Barack Obama, this would already be the law.
But we all know, just like the promise of Obama running the most open and transparent administration in history being a feel-good statement designed to quiet the seething masses, the embrace of open government by our political leaders is based on just exactly whose private communications are being discussed.
And what is equally sad, if not tragic, those in the press who are claim to be acting in the interests of The People in holding the politician accountable could actually care less.
4
Typical myopic logic from someone who uses a name for a creature who can turn its head in whatever direction the wind blows. Keep in mind that the Act was passed and never acted upon again for 42 years before Obama was first elected. Where was the transparency during those years of GOP control?
3
Didn't Congress exempt itself from the sexual harassment laws they applied to the other People before they were finally shamed into applying that law to themselves as well?
10
They even exempted themselves from insider trading laws up until a few years ago. Everytime you turn over a rock in this government something gross comes running out.
4
Let me get this straight. The government can go to a library or book store and get records of who bought or checked out which books. They can listen in on our phone calls and read our email. They can read our snail mail. (Years ago I sent a birthday card to my sister. When it arrived the envelope had been cut open and rubber stamped that it had accidently been open by the CIA. How many letters were "accidently" opened that they had to make a rubber stamp?) Anyway, Congress makes laws that government agents can look at any of our private stuff anytime but feels that the laws don't apply to them. Um, what are they hiding and/or what are they ashamed of?
64
But we, the People, keep voting the same politicians into office, year after year. Congress has a 95% or more incumbent reelection rate...why would they change?
4
Congressional hypocrisy continues to amaze me.
I'd like to see Trey Gowdy and Darrell Issa's emails, for one thing!
I would also like to have half the benefits they get in their protected positions which they want to deny to so many by rolling back the ACA.
The fact that McCarthy's "daughter" was never even adopted by him seems to nullify the rule for secrecy in McCarthy's case, doesn't it?
I'd like to see Trey Gowdy and Darrell Issa's emails, for one thing!
I would also like to have half the benefits they get in their protected positions which they want to deny to so many by rolling back the ACA.
The fact that McCarthy's "daughter" was never even adopted by him seems to nullify the rule for secrecy in McCarthy's case, doesn't it?
39
Harry Reid's notes and e-mails would make a fascinating study in the adverse application of unfettered power.
4
The editorial pages are filled with polemic that stimulates reasonable and heated debate. But this little gem is different. FOIA disclosures have repeatedly been used to inform the public of executive decisions, both recent and historic, that have provided an ongoing civics lesson, and occasional blockbuster revelations. There are few First Amendment rights as weighty as public knowledge of public matters. Exempting Congress from FOIA is simply irrational. Joe McCarthy is the tip of the iceberg. Access to the papers of Nancy Pelosi is critical for understanding the ins and outs of the ACA. CIA torture evidence -- critical information is in the papers of Barbara Boxer. Why did Hillary vote for the Iraq war while Obama voted against -- we need to extend FOIA to find out. In my opinion, debate on this proposal is unwarranted. Mr. Coe has identified a major injustice and the only reasonable course is to change the law as he urges.
42
Barack Obama was not a US senator when the vote on the Iraq war was taken.
9
Obama could not have vote against the Iraq war. He was not a senator yet, being elected in 2004.
9
If the Secretary of State can't decide what you can/cannot see, why do you think you can see the letters of Senators?
1
You are in error, John. It is an EX Secretary of State making the decision based on her own, self-serving, political calculations.
1
We often begin as Americans with the premise that government scrutiny of private matters, and that often includes correspondence, should be generally avoided unless a pressing interest exists to guard against abusive exploitation of power. I can understand the sense that such an interest exists when considering executive power, which is highly leveraged, but may not exist with individual legislators, whose power to abuse is far less concentrated – we have one president with immense power, but 535 federal legislators, each of whom has little real power unless he or she combines into law-making majorities.
I can even accept, though barely, that a child has some interest in the correspondence of a parent. But Joe McCarthy died over 58 years ago, he was an historic figure and you’d think the public’s interest would trump a child’s after all that time. Apparently not.
But from our beginnings, Congress has exempted itself from adherence to some laws, on the theory that the bulk of our nation’s sovereignty rests in Congress and it mustn’t allow degradation of the exercise of that sovereignty by too-artificial constraints. A somewhat dated theory, given Mr. Obama’s recently imposed executive dikta, but that’s their story and they’re sticking to it.
Yet there should be some limits to individuals’ rights to hold back others’ historical information from public scrutiny. A rational limit might be 50 years from the death of the individual, as a suggestion. Do I hear a counter-offer?
I can even accept, though barely, that a child has some interest in the correspondence of a parent. But Joe McCarthy died over 58 years ago, he was an historic figure and you’d think the public’s interest would trump a child’s after all that time. Apparently not.
But from our beginnings, Congress has exempted itself from adherence to some laws, on the theory that the bulk of our nation’s sovereignty rests in Congress and it mustn’t allow degradation of the exercise of that sovereignty by too-artificial constraints. A somewhat dated theory, given Mr. Obama’s recently imposed executive dikta, but that’s their story and they’re sticking to it.
Yet there should be some limits to individuals’ rights to hold back others’ historical information from public scrutiny. A rational limit might be 50 years from the death of the individual, as a suggestion. Do I hear a counter-offer?
6
I was taught that our nation's sovereignty was divided among the three equal branches of government. Just because that gets abused doesn't mean it isn't the way it should be.
As you say, President Obama has exercised executive power, largely in the face of a legislative branch that refused to act at all in its efforts to destroy his presidency. Then there is the Supreme Court with its activist decisions, as in Citizens United, that is helping to destroy what remains of our democracy.
People can throw verbal stones the way you and I have just done, according to our respective political persuasions, but that is the point. Flawed information and lack of access to the record doesn't help us in our efforts to be informed citizens.
And to that point, I agree that a specified time period after the individual's death should apply. Good idea! Clear, too.
As you say, President Obama has exercised executive power, largely in the face of a legislative branch that refused to act at all in its efforts to destroy his presidency. Then there is the Supreme Court with its activist decisions, as in Citizens United, that is helping to destroy what remains of our democracy.
People can throw verbal stones the way you and I have just done, according to our respective political persuasions, but that is the point. Flawed information and lack of access to the record doesn't help us in our efforts to be informed citizens.
And to that point, I agree that a specified time period after the individual's death should apply. Good idea! Clear, too.
24
bse:
You really need to review your history.
In terms of their relationship to the others, each of the three branches of our government was made equal by our current constitution. But both actual power and the larger share of our sovereignty as a nation were vested not equally but in Congress.
You really need to review your history.
In terms of their relationship to the others, each of the three branches of our government was made equal by our current constitution. But both actual power and the larger share of our sovereignty as a nation were vested not equally but in Congress.
For a column on a historical topic, this is remarkably confined to the immediate here and now of the author's current writing project.
Evidently the rules on accessing correspondence of members of Congress are overly restrictive and apply over an excessive time period. The McCarthy era after all, occurred over sixty years ago.
But, how has this restrictive situation come about, and persisted even after passage of FOIA nearly fifty years ago?
Ms Coe is not the first to write about McCarthy, and McCarthy is not the only historically important member of Congress.
Which records are members of Congress permitted or required to not disclose even after leaving office, and why?
Who has been opposed to more open and prompt disclosure and for what reasons?
What prior proposals have been made for more liberal access, and what has been their fate?
This column is totally silent on all such points despite their being central to any public policy consideration of the putative topic.
Instead, it amounts to: There is a deficient law. Change it so I can write my book using information no prior writer has had access to.
Evidently the rules on accessing correspondence of members of Congress are overly restrictive and apply over an excessive time period. The McCarthy era after all, occurred over sixty years ago.
But, how has this restrictive situation come about, and persisted even after passage of FOIA nearly fifty years ago?
Ms Coe is not the first to write about McCarthy, and McCarthy is not the only historically important member of Congress.
Which records are members of Congress permitted or required to not disclose even after leaving office, and why?
Who has been opposed to more open and prompt disclosure and for what reasons?
What prior proposals have been made for more liberal access, and what has been their fate?
This column is totally silent on all such points despite their being central to any public policy consideration of the putative topic.
Instead, it amounts to: There is a deficient law. Change it so I can write my book using information no prior writer has had access to.
2
I did notice that there was a lot of "I" in the article explaining the whys of the "I can't".
But given that deficiency, the points that Ms. Coe is making, are both real and troubling.
But given that deficiency, the points that Ms. Coe is making, are both real and troubling.
3
I wonder if, as some of the comments suggest, the chief value of opening these legislative archives would be less in enhancing historical knowledge than in achieving political advantage. As for Sen. McCarthy, history already has judged him -- correctly, I'm sure -- and I'm not unwilling to wait until his daughter dies for the author to assemble her new round of condemnation. More generally, the help-me-hate-you approach to modern politics hardly seems likely to produce the sort of gentle, thoughtful or effective government that its adherents crave.
Even so, LAN, isn't it the purpose of full and timely disclosure to help foster an informed electorate?
I am a firm believer that if it is done on the taxpayer's dime, it is the taxpayer's right to determine whether the information is relevant or not.
I am a firm believer that if it is done on the taxpayer's dime, it is the taxpayer's right to determine whether the information is relevant or not.
8
Ms Coe has a point but does not go far enough. Public intellectuals who have such an influence on public policy and gain so much materially through that influence, should also be subject to freedom of information requests. That would, of course, dampen the enthusiasm of potential scholars, as Ms Coe's proposals would have on people considering entering public life, but only the pure of heart should be allowed into those spheres of life in any event.
1
The considered answer to your point, sputnik, is that, perhaps, those people should not be participants in the development and implementation of the public policy.
If you are for open and transparent government, those who oppose either should not be in the position to dictate.
If you are for open and transparent government, those who oppose either should not be in the position to dictate.
6
It's hard to work up much sympathy for poor Harry Dexter White dropping dead of a heart attack before testifying as the evidence now public is pretty convincing that, while we do not know the exact particulars, Mr White absolutely had been passing information to the Soviets at some time. I have no doubt that many tarred by Senator McCarthy were innocent, but it is curious that the example chosen here is one who, just like Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs, is now known to have actually been disloyal.
3
Unless classified top secret, all documentation generated by congress..... should be in the public domain within a reasonable period of time. Congress works for us not visa versa and there should be no executive privilege to hide your job from us. Otherwise how do we judge your work performance or lack thereof. Or better yet let wiki and snowden at the archives for us to see. I am tired of these sanctimonious self serving politicians who work for their party and their own self preservation and not for the american public.
88
Despite current regulations the public is still not allowed to read the uncensored correspondence of the Secretary of State. The Senate doesn't have the same rules. Why not mention Ms. Clinton's destruction of official records as an example of non-transparency? If Mr. Nixon had done the same he might have finished his term.
2
You slander Ann Coulter! Saying Coulter uses discredited sources is like saying the NYT ran a front page story about Dale Earnhardt's death.
1
Congress has also exempted itself from the self dealing restrictions it imposed on members of the the executive branch in 18 USC 208. They can send money to family and friends by adding enriching line items to legislation whenever they want.
11
Makes one wonder how the Benghazi committee could demand that Hillary Clinton turn over her emails, doesn't it? Today's emails are yesterday's letters.
15
The committee has not demanded Hillary's emails as senator, which would be exempt, but as Sec. of State, which is in the Executive Department and not exempt.
The US Congress only recently passed a law to prohibit insider trading by members of Congress; members of Congress had been free to commit the crime of insider trading while all other Americans were prohibited from doing so since the 1930's.
The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act ("STOCK" Act), is an Act of Congress designed to combat insider trading; it was signed into law by President Barack Obama on April 4, 2012 --- just 3 years ago !!
Just a few months later in July 2012, CNN exposed a loophole in the law that could have allowed some family members of lawmakers to potentially profit from insider information.
Because of CNN”s investigation both the House and the Senate passed legislation to clarify that the law applied to family members of all members of Congress.
Then unbelievably, one year after its initial passage, the criminals in Congress passed a law scaling back the STOCK Act by eliminating a key requirement of the insider trading law for most federal employees, passing legislation exempting these workers, including congressional staff, from a rule scheduled to take effect that mandated online posting of financial transactions --- essentially gutting the law.
The bottom line is that Congress is a mafia-like organization that generally holds itself above and exempt from American law and transparency.
American democracy is in a state of utter shambles and Congressional corruption.
The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act ("STOCK" Act), is an Act of Congress designed to combat insider trading; it was signed into law by President Barack Obama on April 4, 2012 --- just 3 years ago !!
Just a few months later in July 2012, CNN exposed a loophole in the law that could have allowed some family members of lawmakers to potentially profit from insider information.
Because of CNN”s investigation both the House and the Senate passed legislation to clarify that the law applied to family members of all members of Congress.
Then unbelievably, one year after its initial passage, the criminals in Congress passed a law scaling back the STOCK Act by eliminating a key requirement of the insider trading law for most federal employees, passing legislation exempting these workers, including congressional staff, from a rule scheduled to take effect that mandated online posting of financial transactions --- essentially gutting the law.
The bottom line is that Congress is a mafia-like organization that generally holds itself above and exempt from American law and transparency.
American democracy is in a state of utter shambles and Congressional corruption.
145
Amazing isn't it. But the corruption extends to the executive branch also.
1
Unbelievable isn't it. Their hypocrisy and hubris knows no limits. They embarrass me.
1
"Unless our leaders are only interested in access when it proves politically convenient..."
Well, DUH!
Well, DUH!
1
What else is new. Our president pushed through a health care TAX which members of congress nor the president is required to buy. How can they not pay their TAX. The McCarthy archives should be public. I remember even as a child how his witch hunt affected people.
2
Whatever are you talking about? Presumably you are talking about the ACA, but in what way is it a "tax"? In any case, since January 1, 2014, members of Congress and staff must use the District of Columbia’s SHOP exchange, known as DC Health Link (hereinafter the “DC SHOP”), created under the ACA.
1
Recent events with FOIA requests to the State Department should be enough to convince us that the system doesn't work that well even for those arms of the government that are already compelled to comply.
2
I would be particularly interested in reading the emails of the Republicans on the Benghazi witch hunt committee.
Come on Trey, open up. Let's see what you've really been up to.
Come on Trey, open up. Let's see what you've really been up to.
60
Our lawmakers, despite claims to represent the people, seek every opportunity to exempt themselves from the rules of conduct that apply to the very citizenry they claim to speak for. This is another instance of arrogance and contempt for the very people they need to be elected so they collect their growing salaries, nice pensions and platinum-plated healthcare, when the rest of us struggle to provide for our families, fear losing our jobs and pay ever-increasing premiums for halfway decent healthcare.
Perhaps it's time that we peasants came out with pitchforks, gather outside our representatives' offices and demand why they're exempt from the same rules that they've in their collective wisdom denied to the executive branch. It's a shame and reminds one of the imperial hubris of regimes that deny their people the freedom of speech and information. And, yes this applies to both parties -- they're two sides of the same counterfeit coin.
Perhaps it's time that we peasants came out with pitchforks, gather outside our representatives' offices and demand why they're exempt from the same rules that they've in their collective wisdom denied to the executive branch. It's a shame and reminds one of the imperial hubris of regimes that deny their people the freedom of speech and information. And, yes this applies to both parties -- they're two sides of the same counterfeit coin.
48
I've been waiting for those pitchforks since Reagan. I'm still waiting.
13
Congress exempts itself from all kinds of laws, not just FOIA. Perhaps the best response is a Constitutional amendment in the best traditions of the Constitution (limiting government powers): "Congress shall pass no law that the Congress, any individual Member, or any group of Members are exempt from, in whole or in part." I am sure there are legal quibbles with the wording, but the concept is there: it is "We, the people" (oh, yes, including the Members of Congress). The Governors will follow the same rules as the Governed. All the time.
96
That would be a good law. And let's add that those members of Congress who vote to go to war (except perhaps in a case of a direct military assault on U.S. soil) will be given a year's leave with orders to a combat role on the front lines.
6
I'm not sure, HP Paul, that I would want Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, or Nancy Pelosi defending us on the front lines.
On second thought, it may just be a tactical coup. They might either die of boredom or become so overwhelmed by laughter that they can be easily taken.
On second thought, it may just be a tactical coup. They might either die of boredom or become so overwhelmed by laughter that they can be easily taken.
Nice idea! And it *must* be a constitutional amendment, not a law. Otherwise, the next bunch of jokers in Congress can simply re-write or cancel the law.
Same goes for campaign reform. We need a constitutional amendment.
Same goes for campaign reform. We need a constitutional amendment.
IIs backdoor research and material available through Roy Cohn or other staff members? I agree that McCarthy's place in American history needs to be fully examined but keep in mind what it would be devastating to many of the people whose lives were destroyed by this misguided man.
4
McCarthy was not just "misguided." He was a cruel drunk who was allowed and encouraged by his party (GOP) to destroy lives based on little or no evidence. His claims were inflammatory and bogus. Remember, one of his biggest supporters and encouragers was Richard Nixon.
34
Has anyone considered FOIA is the reason government no longer works. When politicians can't negotiate in confidence they don't negotiate. Negotiation is a complex process and FOIA opens our politicians to criticism of each step in they take in that process. These men and women reasonably expect to be measured against their results.
5
Reread the article. Congress EXEMPTS itself from FOIA. Congress may not work but it's no because of FOIA.
16
You need to catch up--the Tea Party has declared negotiation to be anathema to true believers. It has nothing to do with FOIA. It's all about never giving up on anything. Get all you want or shut down the government. Or, like their members of Congress, get all you want or take your ball and go home.
What seems to really stop government from working is the loss of earmarks. You can no longer buy a vote on an issue of national significance with a bridge or a library. We thought it was corrupt. In fact, it seems to have been the lubricant that kept government operating. I'd be glad to throw Ted Cruz a new post office if he'd just stop trying to reverse Obamacare.
What seems to really stop government from working is the loss of earmarks. You can no longer buy a vote on an issue of national significance with a bridge or a library. We thought it was corrupt. In fact, it seems to have been the lubricant that kept government operating. I'd be glad to throw Ted Cruz a new post office if he'd just stop trying to reverse Obamacare.
10
Not to go off topic or anything, but there were a number of problems with getting rid of earmarks. We, the public, had little understanding of all their functions or of how they were used, so in some kind of knee-jerk reaction to claims of corruption, we pressed to get rid of them. It was not the best of ideas.
3
How can the Legislative branch demand access to Executive branch memos, e-mails and letters while Legislative branch records are sealed? Analysis of the motivation behind successful and even failed legislative initiatives must be very difficult to interpret without access.
Seems like a no-brainer to me - open up Congress!
Seems like a no-brainer to me - open up Congress!
59
I seem to recall reading some years back about a group of eager young people, perhaps Congressional pages or some group of interns, that wanted to take advantage of the rapidly developing internet to provide voters with more transparency about the votes of their Representatives and Senators. My memory is foggy on this, but I believe they came up with a plan for posting voting records on each member's website so that someone who was interested would not have to search for the information but have it readily available in a standard, comprehensive format. They were dismayed when not one Member of Congress supported the idea. It still seems like a great idea to me, though.
2
"Why are there different rules for the executive and legislative branches of government? The obvious answer is a disheartening one: Congress makes the rules, and its members have chosen to exempt themselves."
Is anyone surprised? Of course FOIA should be amended to include legislators - maybe if the Dems regain control it could happen, but then, maybe not.
Is anyone surprised? Of course FOIA should be amended to include legislators - maybe if the Dems regain control it could happen, but then, maybe not.
45
It's worth noting that the FOIA was written and passed by a Congress controlled by the Democrats. I don't foresee any party today voting to change the law.
1
I'm afraid that when it comes to their self-interest, the parties behave about the same. Remember after the Supreme Court's atrocious Citizens United ruling, how Obama lambasted the Court, promising to overturn the ruling with either legislation or a constitutional amendment, with all the Democratic members of Congress nodding in agreement? But by the time these members figured out that the Court's ruling gave incumbents an even greater advantage in elections than before, only deafening silence was heard in Congress about overturning it.
3