Is Online Transparency Just a Feel-Good Sham?

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Va., left, accompanied by House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, speaks about the Boston Marathon explosions during a news conference of House Republican Leadership on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, April 16, 2013. 
National Journal
Billy House
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Billy House
Aug. 20, 2013, 3:30 p.m.

It drew more than a few laughs in Wash­ing­ton. Not long after the White House launched its We the People web­site in 2011, where cit­izens could write on­line pe­ti­tions and get a re­sponse if they garnered enough sig­na­tures, someone called for con­struc­tion of a Star Wars-style Death Star.

With laud­able hu­mor, the White House dis­patched Paul Shaw­cross, chief of the Sci­ence and Space Branch of the Of­fice of Man­age­ment and Budget, to ex­plain that the ad­min­is­tra­tion “does not sup­port blow­ing up plan­ets.”

The in­cid­ent caused a few chuckles, but it also made a more ser­i­ous point: Years after politi­cians and gov­ern­ment of­fi­cials began us­ing In­ter­net sur­veys and on­line out­reach as tools to en­gage people, the res­ults over­all have been ques­tion­able.

While there is no doubt that on­line ad­vocacy works in cam­paigns, crit­ics say that many of these gov­ern­ment pro­grams are geared simply to per­petu­ate the feel-good no­tion that Amer­ic­ans can par­ti­cip­ate more dir­ectly, with few tan­gible res­ults to ar­gue that they work. Pro­grams that are rigged to provide par­tis­an re­sponses, or to gath­er donor in­form­a­tion, have raised more ques­tions still.

“It’s messy,” said J.H. Snider, pres­id­ent of iSo­lon.org and a non­res­id­en­tial lab fel­low at Har­vard Uni­versity’s Ed­mond J. Safra Cen­ter for Eth­ics. “What the ac­tu­al bal­ance is between top-down and bot­tom-up mo­tiv­a­tions only time will tell.”

In June, House Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Eric Can­tor, R-Va., an­nounced the launch of Co­spon­sor.gov, an ex­pan­sion of the House GOP’s earli­er Cit­izen Co­spon­sor Pro­ject. The idea is that Amer­ic­ans can show law­makers which bills they most sup­port and track the pro­gress of the le­gis­la­tion. There are now al­most 3,500 bills sponsored by Re­pub­lic­ans and Demo­crats to choose from.

“We are listen­ing,” Can­tor de­clared in a state­ment June 4 that an­nounced the pro­ject.

And so, cit­izens have been click­ing away, let­ting their on­line voices be heard through a Face­book app. So far, bills to re­peal the Af­ford­able Care Act or to tight­en bor­der se­cur­ity — both ma­jor pri­or­it­ies of House Re­pub­lic­ans — have not emerged as the most pop­u­lar (though they do make the top 10).

Rather, the top two choices are bills to ab­ol­ish the In­tern­al Rev­en­ue Ser­vice and re­place the in­come tax with a na­tion­al sales tax (more than 1,400 cit­izen co­spon­sors) and to start the pro­cess for Pu­erto Rico state­hood (more than 1,300 cit­izen co­spon­sors).

But does that mean House Re­pub­lic­ans will soon be tak­ing ac­tion to dis­solve the IRS and make Pu­erto Rico a state? “Not ne­ces­sar­ily,” Can­tor spokes­man Douglas Heye said in an e-mail.

“Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Can­tor strongly be­lieves that open le­gis­lat­ive data and more dir­ect par­ti­cip­a­tion leads to more know­ledge on the is­sues we face and, ul­ti­mately, bet­ter gov­ern­ment,” Heye said. “That’s why he has cham­pioned in­nov­a­tions such as Co­spon­sor.gov.”

Some pro­grams do draw large num­bers of par­ti­cipants — and all the prob­lems that come with it. When it began, the White House’s We the People site re­quired 25,000 sig­na­tures with­in 30 days to get a re­sponse from the ad­min­is­tra­tion. That threshold was in­creased to 100,000, on the heels of a bom­bard­ment of pe­ti­tions, in­clud­ing ones for the Death Star ef­fort.

Top­ics of pe­ti­tions have run from the ser­i­ous to the ri­dicu­lous. For ex­ample, earli­er this month the White House re­jec­ted a pe­ti­tion idea that called for es­tab­lish­ing a “Gun Free Zone” around the pres­id­ent, vice pres­id­ent, and their fam­il­ies, which would mean no armed se­cur­ity. The pe­ti­tion was seen as the product of an or­gan­ized ef­fort by gun-rights ad­voc­ates, angered by the pres­id­ent’s gun-con­trol ef­forts fol­low­ing the New­town, Conn., shoot­ings.

In­de­pend­ent of the White House, an­oth­er web­site, wh­peti­tions.info, is now provid­ing num­bers and de­tails about the total pe­ti­tions sub­mit­ted to We the People; the num­ber of those that have re­ceived enough sig­na­tures for a re­sponse; and which of those still have not re­ceived re­sponses.

The site — which claims to be “Help­ing the White House Keep its Prom­ise” — shows that 232 pe­ti­tions have met the sig­na­ture threshold, but that the White House has not re­spon­ded to 30 of those. The av­er­age wait­ing time so far for those 30 un­answered pe­ti­tions: 244 days, ac­cord­ing to the site.

Among those pe­ti­tions are calls for the par­don­ing of fu­git­ive Ed­ward Snowden; that stand­ards for glu­ten-free la­beling be fi­nal­ized; that sev­er­al U.S. pro­sec­utors be fired; and that Tesla be al­lowed to sell dir­ectly to con­sumers in all 50 states. Some of these pe­ti­tions ap­pear to be driv­en by or­ches­trated sig­na­ture ef­forts out­side of the United States, which might ex­plain why they’ve been un­answered. For ex­ample, one pe­ti­tion calls for the ad­min­is­tra­tion to try to per­suade South Korea to ac­cept a Ja­pan­ese pro­pos­al on ter­rit­ori­al dis­putes.

Of course, pro­grams like We the People do draw thou­sands in­to the pro­cess. The web­site “has un­doubtedly helped mo­bil­ize the un-mo­bil­ized,” Snider said, “which I gen­er­ally con­sider something that strengthens demo­cracy.” Con­gress too has had some suc­cess.

Even be­fore House Re­pub­lic­ans won their ma­jor­ity in 2010, their Pledge to Amer­ica was pre­ceded by an on­line pro­gram called Amer­ica Speak­ing Out, which was headed by Rep. Kev­in Mc­Carthy of Cali­for­nia, then the chief Re­pub­lic­an deputy whip. Nearly 16,000 policy ideas were pos­ted on the web­site and roughly 1 mil­lion votes were cast.

“Amer­ica Speak­ing Out provided the frame­work to our Pledge to Amer­ica, which still to this day guides our Re­pub­lic­an Ma­jor­ity,” said Mc­Carthy, now the ma­jor­ity whip, through his of­fice.

But skep­ti­cism over the value of these pro­grams — and their genu­ine­ness — re­mains strong. Peter Lev­ine, a pro­fess­or at Tufts Uni­versity’s Jonath­an M. Tisch Col­lege of Cit­izen­ship and Pub­lic Ser­vice, said pro­grams like on­line pe­ti­tion­ing and cit­izen co­spon­sor­ing do not ne­ces­sar­ily pro­duce a real, rep­res­ent­at­ive voice for the people.

It can be “pretty easy to over­whelm these ef­forts with de­lib­er­ate stra­tegic ac­tion,” he said, not­ing that sim­il­ar pe­ti­tion­ing ef­forts in the European Uni­on of­ten find marijuana leg­al­iz­a­tion as the most pop­u­lar meas­ure.

Snider notes that on­line ef­forts are also of­ten polit­ic­ally mo­tiv­ated, a way for politi­cians to build lists and gain con­tact in­form­a­tion.

“These ef­forts are akin to the end­less so­li­cit­a­tions polit­ic­al parties send out to po­ten­tial con­trib­ut­ors that first ask them to fill out a sur­vey and then ask them for money,” he said. “Do they really pay much at­ten­tion to the sur­vey part? Prob­ably not. But they sure pay a lot of at­ten­tion to how the sur­vey gen­er­ates con­tri­bu­tions.”

What We're Following See More »
ON SANCTUARY CITIES
White House Attacks Judge Who Suspended Executive Order
13 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

U.S. District Judge William Orrick Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing part of an executive order calling for the end of federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities. The decision was followed by a scathing rebuke from the White House, a precedent-breaking activity which with this White House has had no qualms. A White House statement called the decision an "egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge." The statement was followed by an inaccurate Wednesday morning tweetstorm from Trump, which railed against the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While Judge Orrick district falls within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, Orrick himself does not serve on the Ninth Circuit.

MAY BRING CONSERVATIVES ON BOARD, BUT WHAT ABOUT MODERATES?
House GOP Circulates Amendment on Preexisting Conditions
1 hours ago
THE LATEST

"House Republicans are circulating the text of an amendment to their ObamaCare replacement bill that they believe could bring many conservatives on board. According to legislative text of the amendment," drafted by Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ), "the measure would allow states to apply for waivers to repeal one of ObamaCare’s core protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Conservatives argue the provision drives up premiums for healthy people, but Democrats—and many more moderate Republicans—warn it would spark a return to the days when insurance companies could charge sick people exorbitantly high premiums."

AT LEAST 30 TO BE ASSESSED
Trump to Order Review of National Monuments
1 hours ago
THE DETAILS

President Trump on Wednesday "will order a review of national monuments created over the past 20 years with an aim toward rescinding or resizing some of them—part of a broader push to reopen areas to drilling, mining, and other development." Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told reporters on Tuesday said he'd be reviewing about 30 monuments.

Source:
EMERGING BUDGET FRAMEWORK?
Dems Proposes Obamacare-for-Defense Deal
17 hours ago
THE LATEST

"An emerging government funding deal would see Democrats agree to $15 billion in additional military funding in exchange for the GOP agreeing to fund healthcare subsidies, according to two congressional officials briefed on the talks. Facing a Friday deadline to pass a spending bill and avert a shutdown, Democrats are willing to go halfway to President Trump’s initial request of $30 billion in supplemental military funding."

Source:
WHITE HOUSE BLOCKING DOC REQUEST
Michael Flynn Remains A Russian-Sized Problem
17 hours ago
BREAKING

The Michael Flynn story is not going away for the White House as it tries to refocus its attention. The White House has denied requests from the House Oversight Committee for information and documents regarding payments that the former national security adviser received from Russian state television station RT and Russian firms. House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz and ranking member Elijah Cummings also said that Flynn failed to report these payments on his security clearance application. White House legislative director Marc Short argued that the documents requested are either not in the possession of the White House or contain sensitive information he believes is not applicable to the committee's stated investigation.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login