Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Censorship Government Your Rights Online

White House Office of Administration Not Subject to FOIA, Says White House 334

An anonymous reader writes with this story at USA Today: The White House is removing a federal regulation that subjects its Office of Administration to the Freedom of Information Act, making official a policy under Presidents Bush and Obama to reject requests for records to that office. The White House said the cleanup of FOIA regulations is consistent with court rulings that hold that the office is not subject to the transparency law.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

White House Office of Administration Not Subject to FOIA, Says White House

Comments Filter:
  • by Peter Simpson ( 112887 ) on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @09:54AM (#49275487)
    ...except when it applies to us?

    This is not the kind of "hope and change" I voted for, Mr. President.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Oh, did I say "Hope and Change"? I meant "Rules for Thee, Not for Me!" Whoops. - BHO
    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @09:59AM (#49275557)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • by knightghost ( 861069 ) on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @10:30AM (#49275885)

        Neither major party supports the country. Vote for a 3rd option.

      • by T.E.D. ( 34228 ) on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @01:17PM (#49277299)

        Well, you could try voting in the primaries this time too. That's the only election that actually scares our lawmakers, so that's where an impact can really be made.

        That's the realization Lessig's MAYDAY PAC [mayday.us] recently came to.

    • by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @10:02AM (#49275595)

      Most transparent..Ahhahaha..Most..hehheahhaaa..Most transparent Admi...cough choke...ROFLMAO! [thehill.com] oh, Fuck It, I can't even say it without laughing.

      • by Chris Mattern ( 191822 ) on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @10:16AM (#49275729)

        At this point, I have come to the conclusion that Obama has difficulty distinguishing between "transparency" and "invisibility."

      • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        To be fair, "most transparent" relative to the past may be true. If you get a D- while all your predecessors got an F, then you have the "best grades so far". Thus, technically he may be correct, even if misleading.

        I'm not sure perfect transparency is good thing anyhow. When they tried an open public discussion on the ACA bill, it turned into a useless posing and rant session. People spend more time performing for a sound-bite-sensitive crowd than doing real work.

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          Um, there was zero debate on Obamacare before it was voted on.
          • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @11:16AM (#49276287) Journal

            Incorrect. They did have an open discussion; I watched parts of it. However, it appeared GOP had already decided before the meeting that they wanted to kill ACA rather than shape it. Because of that, the "discussion" quickly morphed into the usual culture-war lectures and slogans rather than bill details.

            I do credit O for trying it.

            To give an IT analogy, it would be like a GUI design meeting where one side adamantly wanted a command line interface and thought all GUI's stank.

            Fred: "Bob, do you think the button should go on the top or the bottom?"

            Bob: "Screw buttons, GUI's are for sissies and encourage OS bloat dependency."

            Fred: "Mark, how about you, where should the button go?"

            Mark: "I'll tell you where to shove the button! I refuse to participate in the GUI take-over of computers. This will ruin the fabric of computing society and kill IT jobs!"
                 

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by HornWumpus ( 783565 )

              The GOP had nothing to do with the ACA. They had no power to speak of at the time. The DNC owns the whole stinking pig fuck. And they no longer have to power to fix/change it. LOL.

              • by RingDev ( 879105 ) on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @12:25PM (#49276893) Homepage Journal

                I believe you may be suffering from ODS.

                http://www.slate.com/articles/... [slate.com]

                The GOP introduced over 700 amendments to the ACA before it was put to the floor for a vote. Of those, 161 passed. Compared to the 36 Dem submitted amendments that passed.

                To claim that the "GOP had nothing to do with the ACA" is verifiably untrue. To further claim that "They had no power to speak of at the time" highlights a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of how the legislative branch of our government works.

                -Rick

                • by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @02:37PM (#49278043)

                  The fact that over 700 amendments were still unable to fix it should tell you something. In the end, no Republicans voted for it.

                  Democrats will often say, well, what's your alternative? When you are standing at the edge of a cliff and one party is contemplating jumping, you should not be discussing different ways of jumping. Perhaps just not jumping would have been the better solution.

              • by T.E.D. ( 34228 )

                Actually, the Republicans had rather a lot to do with the drafting of it, even if none of them voted for it in the end. It went a lot like this:

                R: If you remove X, I might vote for it.

                Obama: OK, it now doesn't have X.

                R: Psyche! Not good enough, sucker. Hahaha! But seriously, if you add Y [wikipedia.org], then I might vote for it.

                Obama: OK, it now has Y.

                R: OMG! Everybody, come look at Y! That's Death Panels! Obama wants to kill your grandmother!...

            • Incorrect. They did have an open discussion; I watched parts of it. However, it appeared GOP had already decided before the meeting that they wanted to kill ACA rather than shape it. Because of that, the "discussion" quickly morphed into the usual culture-war lectures and slogans rather than bill details.

              I remember trying to talk about the Obamacare legislation, before it passed. I would say something to the effect of, "I have a concern about the concept of X, and how it will be put into practice." The
          • They didn't even read it, lol.

    • by oh_my_080980980 ( 773867 ) on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @10:10AM (#49275659)
      Nobody reads anymore:

      "In 2009, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled that the Office of Administration was not subject to the FOIA, "because it performs only operational and administrative tasks in support of the president and his staff and therefore, under our precedent, lacks substantial independent authority."

      The appeals court ruled that the White House was required to archive the e-mails, but not release them under the FOIA. Instead, White House e-mails must be released under the Presidential Records Act — but not until at least five years after the end of the administration."

      Nothing to see her folks.
      • by krlynch ( 158571 )

        "Not subject to FOIA" is not the same as "we refuse to respond to FOIA requests" .... the Administration is certainly not forbidden from providing more than is required under the law.

      • So, if the Office of Administration is so innocuous, what's the harm in making it subject to FOIA requests? Exempting yourself from them makes it look like you're hiding something.

        See "Nixon White House" for a possible reason FOIA requests to this office should be allowed.

      • It's a question of what's right, not what's legal, that the OP is talking about. It's hypocritical for an administration that campaigned on being transparent to then engage in this sort of activity, even though what they're doing is perfectly legal. It's like promising to use an investor's money for one thing and then suddenly using it for something else that is perfectly legal but contrary to what you said. Were this administration a corporation, we'd be able to sue them (and pretty much every previous adm

    • by tmosley ( 996283 )
      The question is, did you learn your lesson? Will you stop supporting the one party Republocrat system next election?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        those who think the true power browers will ALLOW a 3rd party candidate - you assholes are so out of touch with reality, you are helping to ruin things by giving people false hope.

        the only way to fix this is to totally break it and reinvent it.

        the current US system WILL NOT ALLOW FOR 3RD PARTY CANDIDATES. how long will it take you numbskulls to get this into your heads? america is NOT a free nation and those who run things alternate parties to keep us thinking we have a choice.

        the last few decades have be

        • by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @10:38AM (#49275957)

          "but I voted independant!" you say. yeah, how much good did that do? seriously? what did it accomplish?

          The problem is that not enough people are voting for third parties. As I understand it, if at least 15% (I think) of the vote goes to a third party, suddenly things change, as that party becomes eligible for federal campaign financing, a spot in the debates, and other perks. Basically the system shuts out anyone that's too small, meaning too little of the vote. So if enough people would actually start voting for third parties, then we might start seeing some change. But no one wants to bother.

          Most people who lend some vocal support say they don't vote third party because they don't want their vote "wasted", or to effectively count for "the other guy", who's even worse, so they're "voting for the lesser of two evils". The problem is, in most states, the outcome is already predetermined at the general election. Most states are not swing states. So if you're in a non-swing state, you can safely vote third party without worrying that you're helping the worse of two evils get elected. For instance, if you live in Arizona or Alabama or Oklahoma and you think Dems are the lesser evil, you're really wasting your vote on a Democrat presidential candidate because there's zero chance those states will turn blue. If half the Dem voters in those states voted for, say, the Green Party, we'd really start seeing some interesting politics.

          • If you want to change this, don't waste your time on third parties until the time that third parties can actually win with the amount of time and effort you can put into them. Instead, focus your effort on changing the voting laws in your state to be some form of IRV or proportional representation or some other scheme that actually allows third parties to be elected. Until you have this on the ballot in your state and it is passed, anything you do with respect to third parties will be useless (other than as

          • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

            As I understand it, if at least 15% (I think) of the vote goes to a third party, suddenly things change, as that party becomes eligible for federal campaign financing, a spot in the debates, and other perks.

            It sounds good but there are still many bridges to cross. While they might be able to get federal monies, that is about the only thing they can count on. As far as a spot in the debates goes those are all run by private business they can do whatever they like. If one of the majors candidates, quietly informs the networks hosting they would likely decline a debate invitation should they discover $3rdParty candidate gets an invite; I am sure that is where it would end.

            Different states have differing rules

          • "but I voted independant!" you say. yeah, how much good did that do? seriously? what did it accomplish?

            The problem is that not enough people are voting for third parties. As I understand it, if at least 15% (I think) of the vote goes to a third party, suddenly things change, as that party becomes eligible for federal campaign financing, a spot in the debates, and other perks. Basically the system shuts out anyone that's too small, meaning too little of the vote. So if enough people would actually start voting for third parties, then we might start seeing some change. But no one wants to bother.

            Most people who lend some vocal support say they don't vote third party because they don't want their vote "wasted", or to effectively count for "the other guy", who's even worse, so they're "voting for the lesser of two evils". The problem is, in most states, the outcome is already predetermined at the general election. Most states are not swing states. So if you're in a non-swing state, you can safely vote third party without worrying that you're helping the worse of two evils get elected. For instance, if you live in Arizona or Alabama or Oklahoma and you think Dems are the lesser evil, you're really wasting your vote on a Democrat presidential candidate because there's zero chance those states will turn blue. If half the Dem voters in those states voted for, say, the Green Party, we'd really start seeing some interesting politics.

            You're focusing on the wrong arena to affect change. Sure, a 3rd party president would deb ground breaking; but the odds are stacked against such an outcome. At the local level, however, things are different.You can elect council members, state representatives, Congressional representatives,and maybe the odd Senator. Do that, and you get noticed. Elect enough and you can hold enough power to decide which party becomes the majority party. Then you can affect change.

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • The question is, did you learn your lesson? Will you stop supporting the one party Republocrat system next election?

        Never supported it in the first place but for better or worse that does not matter. There is nothing I am going to be able to do that will make it go away. Furthermore it's not as if the (theoretical) alternatives are somehow more compelling. Libertarian? Green? There's nothing out there that I think is likely to be meaningfully better even if I could somehow be convinced that a third party somehow had a realistic chance at attaining power.

        The ONLY thing that will make our current "two" party system go

      • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

        The question is, did you learn your lesson? Will you stop supporting the one party Republocrat system next election?

        I voted for the Libertarian candidate last presidential election. Lot of good that did. I think he won maybe 13% of my county, and 1% of my state? The time where parties could just pop up or split off established parties and win passed a good century ago, and the "us vs them" mentality has been so cultured over the past 2 decades that no mainstream politician dares stray too far from the party line lest their career come to an abrupt end because their voter base will turn on them.

    • This is not the kind of "hope and change" I voted for, Mr. President.

      Apparently he forgot the words of Abraham Lincoln: "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

    • Fool you once, shame on him.
      Fool you twice, shame on you.

    • What's it going to take to get representatives (in all branches) in Washington to realize that we shouldn't live in a society where the Government lords over the people, but instead understand they are employees of the people?
      Or to quote George Carlin, "Don't I pay your salary? You're a public servant. Get me a glass of water!"
    • “All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.” -- FRANK HERBERT ("Heretics of Dune")
    • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

      I find it funny that you ever thought it would be.

  • Because were living in the Roman Empire.
  • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @09:56AM (#49275517) Homepage Journal
    ....man, I'm glad he's kept so SOOOO many of his election year promises. Transparency was one of the big ones I actually liked in what he was saying.

    Oh well....

    • I didn't believe a single thing he said.

      I knew he would be essentially like a republican, just less 'christ-y' (at least in public). the war on non-christians and women and minorities did take a bit of a back seat the last 2 terms. it would have been much worse under R guidance, I'm quite sure of that.

      but as for the hope and change, I didn't believe that. its impossible since the system is broken and cannot be fixed without a total re-do (which no one seems to want in their lifetimes).

      you can be sure tha

      • by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @10:11AM (#49275671) Journal

        He isn't "essentially" like a republican, as he has the cover of press. Had this been an actual republican, the press would be apoplectic over this. So, in a way, he is worse that republicans.

        And the same can be said for HRC and her email scandal. There is an increased deference given to anybody with a (D) after their name.

        So, why would you vote for (D)? Because they say things in ways that make you feel good, while screwing you like an (R)?

      • by sjbe ( 173966 )

        you can be sure that the medical MJ movement would have been totally stalled if an R was in office

        The word "medical" has nothing to do with it and never did. The medical thing is a fig leaf to cover people wanting to get high. It's remarkable how many 20 year old glaucoma patients we suddenly have. I have NO problem with someone wanting to smoke weed but the notion that for 99.999% of people it has anything to do with a legitimate medical condition is just ludicrous. I'd be more supportive if they would drop the insulting pretense that it has anything to do with medicine because it doesn't and never

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @10:01AM (#49275591)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by AntEater ( 16627 ) on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @10:06AM (#49275631) Homepage

      His election was the triumph of marketing over substance!

  • by Anonymous Coward

    What ugly things are you trying to hide Mr. President?

    The fact that you are no longer represent people of this country?
    The fact that your actions are exact opposite of your rhetoric claims?

    Is it an attempt to remove any possibility for people to learn and act,
    provided they will wake up one day?

    Makes me wonder ....

    • Calm down Zippy. In 2009, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled that the Office of Administration was not subject to the FOIA. So there's nothing to get your panties in a bind over.
      • by zlives ( 2009072 )

        true as that maybe, it still flies in the face of the transparent govt. platform President Obama ran upon.
        the courts have also ruled that the corporations are citizens... again just because the ruling says so doesn't make it right.

  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Radar and laser don't apply to me if I'm speeding. Right? Oh.

    FCC rules don't apply to me using interesting hardware to intercept cellphone traffic. Right? Oh.

    Regulations don't apply to me if I want to sell firearms to people in Mexico. Right? Oh.

    Yep, this seems par for the course. We peasants can go fuck ourselves while the ruling class does what they please. I mean we can't expect them to reveal the horrific things that are going on to protect corporate trade secrets. Sheesh.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Considering the FOIA act does not apply to the White House, I don't know why you are whining.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Considering the FOIA act does not apply to the White House, I don't know why you are whining.

        Because Obama promised an extremely transparent administration. Hiding behind the limitations of FOIA scope is a dick move, considering his promises.

        • And fighting FOIA requests in a friendly court to set a precedent that FOIA doesn't apply to 'The most transparent admin ever'. The court ruling is the result of the Whitehouse opposing transparency.

          It's one arm of the federal gov't empowering another. The judicial wolf pack approved the Whitehouse wolf packs choice of mutton for dinner. Political sheep hail victory by 'their' pack, not realizing what being invited to mutton dinner means. (to paraphrase 'tyranny is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's f
  • by Anonymous Coward

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment [whitehouse.gov]
    Transparency and Open Government
    Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

    SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government

    My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effective

  • by Karmashock ( 2415832 ) on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @10:25AM (#49275827)

    am I right guys?

  • by KermodeBear ( 738243 ) on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @10:32AM (#49275901) Homepage

    Aren't regulations great? When they're no longer convenient they can just *Poof!* make them disappear. When it is convenient to have a new regulation, *Poof!* it appears just as easily.

    We need less regulatory fiat in our government. This is the kind of stuff that should be codified into law.

    Clear, concise law at that. Not 2,000+ pages of crap nobody has read.

  • by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @12:14PM (#49276803) Journal

    During the McCarthy hearings, this was a primary bone of contention between McCarthy and Eisenhower (who, despite both being Republicans, personally despised one another). Ike insisted that the president's records, and those of the executive branch, could NOT be subpoena'd for McCarthy's hearings.
    When the courts tended toward finding that the PRESIDENT's correspondence and files were sacrosanct by the separation of powers rules*, this didn't apply to the State Dept records, so Ike had the State Dept file cabinets physically moved to the Oval Office.
    McCarthy, hinting that the President was doing this because he might have something embarrassing in the files, had finally crossed the line by maligning a figure of such public reverence that the public couldn't tolerate it. Logically, he was perfectly correct; it seems unreasonable that Ike would have gone to such lengths to simply defend a presidential prerogative on principle alone, but then again his personal enmity for McCarthy likely played a role as well.

    *final curious appendix to this story: one of the Junior Congressmen working for McCarthy, who saw how the courts went to the mat to defend the IRONCLAD sanctity of Ike's files from Congressional snooping would later find that such precedents were little defense in protecting his own files, Mr Richard Nixon.

"If there isn't a population problem, why is the government putting cancer in the cigarettes?" -- the elder Steptoe, c. 1970

Working...