As those questions get sorted out, it’s worth noting that the White House has gone to pains to emphasize that it has only agreed to release the information voluntarily—meaning that neither the policy’s application nor the fine points of its language will be subject to court review. While both the Bush and Obama White Houses faced lawsuits attempting to compel disclosure of visitor logs under FOIA—and lost them three times at the federal district court level—the question remained on appeal at the time the new policy was announced last month. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which waged many of the key lawsuits, agreed to drop its cases in wake of the administration’s discretionary policy. While questionable application of the policy could draw a new suit on the question of whether the records are under FOIA’s jurisdiction, there is nothing to stop this or any future administration from modifying, ignoring, maliciously misinterpreting, or dropping the visitor disclosure policy at will.
“It’s up to them to live by their agreement,” Mosk told CJR.
While the White House has promised to release the first batch of visitor records from September 15 to October 15, minus withholdings, by late December, plans for a full release of visitor records between the inauguration and mid-September are, at best, vague at this point. (Judicial Watch is threatening to sue over the issue.)
The White House maintains a Web form where anyone can submit a request for visitor information from this eight-month period, for up to ten people at a time. After initially sending a letter requesting visitor records for the president’s top forty-five bundlers to White House counsel Gregory Craig on September 25, Mosk was told to submit the requests online, which he did in early October. On Monday, Mosk says he was told that he could expect the records “fairly soon.” The request remained unfilled at the time of the article’s publication, and it remains unclear when he’ll get them.
“I’m guessing Halloween,” says Mosk. “Or some other inconvenient time.”
Clint, I'd like you to clarify your wildly irresponsible contention that anything in that WaTimes story suggests a so-called "pay-to-play scheme." Pay-to-play is Katharine Weymouth selling, quid pro quo, off-the-record access to policymakers and reporters to big money lobbyists for cash. I'm shocked that a purportedly responsible journalist like you would write something like that without a shred of evidence.
Please show where any of the campaign funds raised by the Obama campaign were in any way illegal or shady. People have every legal right to either donate to a campaign or to bundle funds for a campaign subject to limitations of campaign laws. Please show ANY evidence that ANY sort of promise for White House access was made in exchange for campaign donations. Please show ANY evidence that the Obama campaign was attempting to sell ambassadorships or other positions, or White House visiting privileges such as family use of a bowling alley, for campaign donations.
Please provide any evidence that anything represented in those visitor logs was in any way not aboveboard or illegal. The insinuations and innuendos you are making, associating perfectly legal campaign fund-raising among friends and associates of a politician with subsequent legal and relevant contacts, are offensive and irresponsible, unless you can show evidence of undue influence or illegality. You haven't even begun to do that.
Where's the quid pro quo?
YOUR credibility is on the line here, Mr. Hendler, and your judgment as well. I'd suggest you retract that "pay-to-play" allegation until you can come up with some evidence.
I have no problem with you journos keeping an eye on the Executive Branch, or any branch of government for that matter. But when you make such over-the-top allegations as "pay-to-play" which even the rightwing Moonie Times didn't make, you'd better present some evidence.
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Sun 1 Nov 2009 at 09:21 AM
Be still, Cody.
Pay-to-play schemes are notorious for existing in the murky nether region between law and lawlessness. Call them "between the boards".
Start, but for heaven's sake don't stop, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_to_Play#cite_note-5
#2 Posted by D.R. Foster, CJR on Wed 4 Nov 2009 at 05:51 PM