Sunshine Week Home Page » Sunshine Campaign Candidates »

Sunshine Campaign: Clinton

Published: March 16, 2008
Last Updated: March 16, 2008

Washington — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) says she is "committed to restoring open government" by not only mandating more open meetings and release of public documents, but also by nominating "an attorney general who has a proven commitment to open government," according to her response to the Sunshine Week 2008: Sunshine Campaign survey of presidential candidates. Sunshine Week — a non-partisan, open government initiative led by the American Society of Newspaper Editors that runs March 16-22 — surveyed the presidential candidates on a variety of open government issues, including access to information, Freedom of Information Act reform, secrecy and classification. To date, Clinton is the only remaining major candidate to respond. Former democratic contenders Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.) replied in full and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) responded in part.

"I believe in an open, transparent government that is accountable to the people," Clinton wrote. "Excessive government secrecy harms democratic governance and can weaken our system of checks and balances by shielding officials from oversight and inviting misconduct or error.

"To me, openness and accountability are not platitudes — they are essential elements of our democracy," she added.

Clinton's response comes on the heels of a Sunshine Week public opinion survey by Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University that found three-quarters of Americans think the federal government is secretive, and almost nine in 10 say where a presidential candidate stands on openness is something they consider when deciding who will get their vote.

Clinton's administration would operate with a presumption of openness, achieved by nominating an attorney general "who is committed to openness and transparency"; by directing agency and department heads to allow greater public scrutiny of the decision-making process; by training and auditing agency personnel to ensure overclassification and pseudo-classification are kept in check; and by safeguarding scientific conclusions from political interference.

"I would make it clear to everyone in the Executive Branch that I expect my administration to be open and responsive to the public," Clinton stated.

Clinton also said that if elected, she would disclose the donors to the Clinton Library and Clinton Foundation prospectively; she would roll back President Bush's executive order limiting the release of presidential records; and she would post federal contracts and budgets online.

General Overview: In 500-1,000 words, please summarize your position on open government. What is your personal philosophy on citizen access to government information? You may attach the statement in a separate document, if you prefer.

I believe in an open, transparent government that is accountable to the people. Excessive government secrecy harms democratic governance and can weaken our system of checks and balances by shielding officials from oversight and inviting misconduct or error. To me, openness and accountability are not platitudes — they are essential elements of our democracy.

As a presidential candidate, I have put forward a series of proposals to end the Bush administration’s reign of excessive secrecy and unaccountability. I have proposed reforms to our government so that the public knows what its government is doing, why, and what the results are. And I will limit the government’s protection of information to instances where it is truly necessary. I invite you to learn more through my answers below and by visiting my Web site, www.hillaryclinton.com.

Secrecy: There has been considerable discussion and commentary on the "growing culture of secrecy" in the federal government. A nationwide opinion poll conducted for Sunshine Week 2007 found that two-thirds of American adults believe the federal government is secretive. Do you agree or disagree? If you believe the equation needs changing, what would you do to address that?

Agree. In a democracy, government has a basic obligation to share as much information as possible with the public. I have put forward a government reform agenda that opens government decision-making, budgeting, and performance to public scrutiny and promotes the Internet as a tool of government transparency. My plan includes banning Cabinet officials from lobbying my administration once they have left office; ending the abuse of no-bid contracts and posting every contract online; publishing the budgets of every government agency; and creating a new Results America Initiative to track government effectiveness.

Secrecy: Officials and agencies frequently withhold from the public memorandums exchanged in decision making, claiming that disclosure would chill the deliberative process. Critics of this practice say it deprives the public of vital information on how decisions are made. What is your view? If you disagree with the withholding, what would you do to bring about a change?

I am committed to restoring open government. I believe that the Bush administration has reminded us in so many ways of the harmfulness of excessive secrecy. With that in mind, I would direct my department and agency heads to open the decision-making process to greater public scrutiny, by putting more meetings on the record and making more documents public. Of course, presidents starting with George Washington have recognized a limited place for protecting the confidentiality of certain Executive Branch communications, but it has to be just that — limited. The presumption should be openness.

Classification of Information: Since 2000, the number of classification decisions has gone up markedly, while the total number of pages declassified has dropped sharply. What is your view on these trends? If you believe there are problems with overclassification or declassification, do you have specific corrective steps in mind?

I believe that too much government information is classified. Too many documents marked “top secret” do not meet the relevant criteria. And I am concerned with the Bush administration’s unprecedented expansion of the state secrets privilege to shield its programs from judicial review. Improper and unnecessary classification not only harms the public interest in accessing government information, but also harms government effectiveness. In addition, information may be classified improperly in order to hide wrongdoing or prevent disclosure of embarrassing information.

Of course, it is sometimes essential to protect intelligence sources and methods and other national security information, and we must do so in appropriate cases. But all too often, classification is the default in our national security agencies. We must encourage agency personnel to classify properly; it must not become the default position. Training and regular auditing will be critical to ensuring that a new culture of classification is instilled. I also support an energized declassification process to ensure that it takes into account adequately the public interest in access.

Pseudo-Classification Information: The multiplicity of "sensitive but unclassified" markings and the lack of criteria to be used in safeguarding information have been called damaging to the flow of information both within the government and to the public. Do you agree? What changes to the system, if any, would you direct?

I agree. The pseudo-classification of information is out of control. By some counts, there are more than 50 different designations for “sensitive but unclassified” information in at least a dozen agencies. The standards for designation and dissemination of this information vary widely from agency to agency and interfere significantly with sharing of information within the government and with the public. These designations also have a harmful effect on scientific research and inhibit sharing of information within the scientific community.

I would move quickly to standardize classification and to reduce significantly the categories of these pseudo classifications and to have consistent rules throughout the government for their use.

Confidential Sources: Do you believe there should be a reporter-source privilege, such as outlined in the proposed federal Free Flow of Information Act, to protect the identities of reporters' confidential sources? If yes, would you modify the bill in any way? If no, what are your objections?

I recognize the importance of the Free Flow of Information Act. Allowing reporters to protect their sources helps ensure that whistleblowers and other informants can pass along vital information to the media. Lawmakers are currently struggling with one key remaining question about the bill: how to define who is engaging in “journalism” and therefore who enjoys the protections of the Act. I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve an answer to that question that is workable and preserves the important goals of the Act and recognizes the important role that bloggers play in journalism, while also ensuring other values are respected.

Freedom of Information Act: In 2001, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memo to federal agencies counseling them to withhold documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act if they find any legal basis for non-disclosure. He said the Justice Department would back them in court. This reversed the policy of Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, which called for a presumption of openness and urged agencies to release information if disclosure would do no harm. Where on this access to information spectrum would you want the view of your choice for Attorney General to fall? Would an open government philosophy be a factor in vetting your choice?

I support Attorney General Reno’s approach. There should be a presumption of openness, and I would instruct my attorney general to press all agencies to release information if disclosure would do no harm. The tenure of Attorney General Gonzales confirmed the importance of appointing an attorney general who is committed to openness and transparency, where the public and where Congress and the courts are concerned. I will nominate an attorney general who has a proven commitment to open government.

Access to Information: The backlog of unprocessed Freedom of Information Act requests has risen to almost 40 percent in recent years. What, if anything, can be done to reverse this trend and bring efficiency to the FOIA process?

The backlog stems in no small part from the Bush administration’s culture of secrecy. Those who work in the Executive Branch now understand that their superiors value delay. I would make it clear to everyone in the Executive Branch that I expect my administration to be open and responsive to the people.

I also support putting more financial pressure on agencies to comply with their FOIA obligations, and Congress has recently taken this step. Until recently, agencies that failed to respond promptly to FOIA requests could simply pass along the costs of non-compliance to the Claims and Judgment Fund of the U.S. Treasury. They weren’t penalized financially. But under a new law passed in December 2007, agencies will have to pay from their own budgets when they don’t comply with FOIA. This financial accountability will give a wake-up call to agencies that they need to comply with FOIA or face meaningful consequences.

Access to Information: Do you believe the Freedom of Information Act should be amended to cover the administrative functions of Congress and federal courts? Why or why not?

Congress and federal courts should work to adopt procedures to enhance the openness of its records. Whether FOIA should be amended, or Congress and the courts should adopt other rules in order to accomplish this goal, requires further analysis.

Presidential Records: In 2001, President Bush signed an executive order that grants control over the release of presidential records to former presidents and their families. As president, would you let that directive stand or reverse it? Why?

I think we should roll back his Executive Order, because it places too many constraints on the public’s access to records. I thought that his Executive Order was unnecessary and contrary to the intent of the Presidential Records Act — which was passed to assist in opening presidential records.

Contributions to Presidential Libraries: Do you support legislation that would require the names of donors to presidential libraries — and the amount they donated — to be public information? Why?

I cosponsored legislation in 2001 that would have required the sitting president to disclose donations or commitments to his or her library foundation totaling $5,000 or more per year. When I am president, the Clinton Library and Clinton Foundation will prospectively disclose their donors.

First Amendment Rights: As president, how would you set a tone that protects the First Amendment rights of federal scientists and ensures public and congressional access to taxpayer-funded science? Under your administration, will government scientific information be presumed to be publicly available unless a compelling reason is given to withhold it, or will information be presumed sensitive unless there is a compelling public benefit to its release?

I have specifically spoken out against President Bush’s war on science and I have outlined an aggressive agenda to end his efforts to undermine science. Government scientific information will be presumed to be publicly available unless a compelling reason is given to withhold it. I will ban political appointees from altering or removing scientific conclusions in government publications and prohibit the suppression of public statements by government scientists, absent a compelling reason. I will direct all department and agency heads to submit annual reports on the steps they have taken to safeguard against instances of political pressure threatening scientific integrity and to promote openness and transparency in scientific decision-making.

Cameras in the Courtroom: What is your view on allowing television and still photography, as well as live video and audio coverage, in federal district and appellate courtrooms and in the Supreme Court?

The public should have a right to see our justice system operate. In some cases, like those involving children or sexual assault, cameras may be harmful. But the presumption should be in favor of openness and access. Whether the Supreme Court requires special rules deserves careful review, but I would advocate continued and expanded use of audio feeds of Supreme Court arguments while we assess the feasibility and appropriateness of cameras in the Supreme Court.