While Claiming Transparency, White House Skirts Transparency Questions

After arriving in office, President Obama took a major step towards shining new sunlight on the comings and goings of lobbyists entering the White House grounds. As of January 28, 2011, there are now more than 1 million secret service visitor logs posted online by the White House, with an easily searchable and downloadable database. It took me about one minute to find out that actor George Clooney, who is also an anti-genocide activist, has been to the White House three times, once to see Vice President Biden and twice to see President Obama.

But as Politico pointed out this morning, the logs are not reliable records for all the homebase meetings between White House officials and lobbyists. Obama Administration officials have made a habit of arranging meetings at a conference center across the street, and at coffee shops nearby the White House, where the Secret Service makes no record of comings and goings.

Today, in the White House briefing, I asked Press Secretary Jay Carney several questions on the practice of meeting lobbyists off campus. (As previously noted, Carney worked for TIME until the end of  2008.) Among them: Was there any guidance given to White House officials on when it is appropriate to meet with lobbyists off campus? Would it be appropriate for a White House official to intentionally meet off campus so there was no record of the meeting?

Carney responded by saying, accurately, that the level of transparency by Obama was “unprecedented.” He said that the Politico story was “absurd” since it focused on meeting rooms across the street from the White House that were used to solve space issues. And he said he was not aware of anyone at the White House intentionally trying to “hide where they are meeting.” “The suggestion that we’re not being transparent is laughable given the unbelievable precedent this administration has set,” Carney said.

But in his discussion of White House transparency, Carney did not directly answer the question of whether White House officials get guidance on when it is appropriate to meet off campus with lobbyists. He also did not answer whether it would be appropriate for a White House official to intentionally arrange a meeting with a lobbyist off campus to avoid showing up in the records.

The campaign finance reform group Common Cause has called for the White House to release records of all contacts with registered lobbyists, wherever they occur. See the Common Cause statement here.

The transcript follows below:

Q    Given the President’s commitment to transparency, is there any guidance White House officials get about when it’s appropriate to meet off campus with a lobbyist and when a lobbyist meeting should be on campus?

MR. CARNEY:  This administration has taken extraordinary actions to be transparent.  I think this question stems from a story that, frankly, was absurd.  We release hundreds of thousands of records voluntarily, a policy instituted by this President because of his desire for transparency — something no administration had ever done before.  The decisions about where — and those records are available to every American citizen online to be reviewed, and all different types of people come to the White House complex for meetings on issues.  And our level of transparency and disclosure is unprecedented because the President believes deeply in it.

What I would say is that, as any of you who have walked around this complex know, been in the West Wing — not like the TV show; very small space, very few meeting rooms.  The Old Executive Office Building — the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, a third of which has been under renovation since we’ve been here — very limited space.  Jackson Place is a White House conference center — so designated — and therefore when we have large meetings sometimes we use that space if there are no spaces here.

So that’s –

Q    But would you agree that there’s effectively a transparency loophole here, if the goal is to show when lobbyists, powerful interests, are meeting with White House officials, that right now it’s routine for White House officials to meet off campus with these people and there’s no daylight on that?

MR. CARNEY:  It is routine for the White House officials to meet with all types of people, including lobbyists, and frequently here.  The suggestion that we’re not being transparent is laughable given the unbelievable precedent this administration has set in its — closing the door, the revolving door, and releasing these records.  There are no — the WAVES system, which is the system that produces the records, operates in certain buildings and not others.  And for those decisions, how that operates and why, I refer you to the United States Secret Service.  But the principle here is the unprecedented level of transparency that we have provided because we believe deeply in it.

Q    Would it be inappropriate for a White House official to intentionally arrange a meeting off campus to not be caught by the WAVES records?

MR. CARNEY:  Look, we have meetings with all sorts of people.  We have them here.  Those records are available.

Q    But would it be appropriate if you choose to go off campus because you didn’t want it to show up in the files?

Q   [At this point other reporters in the room began asking follow ups.] It’s yes or no.

MR. CARNEY:  The guiding principle here is transparency, and we believe that — nobody is, that I’m aware of, is hiding where they’re meeting. The meetings that happen at Jackson Place, it’s a big meeting place and that’s where –

Q    If it’s so big, why not change the policy and release those names –

MR. CARNEY:  We do not control where the WAVES is.  And I’m not going to — in terms of –

Q    You could release them separately.  You could change the policy.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, Chip, look, I’m not aware what policies might be instituted in the future.  But what I think is fundamentally important to remind you of is that we release information that has never been released before.  I think you probably remember, you were covering the previous administration.  They went to court, to the Supreme Court, to prevent the disclosure of people who were meeting with the Vice President.  We voluntarily release the records that are available to us.  And we never said that there was a way to get every name in every meeting.  The principle is disclosure, and we have gone to extraordinary lengths to make that happen.

Q    Would you consider changing the policy to increase disclosure?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I don’t want to predict about future policies that may be put in place.  I just want to remind everybody about what we’ve done and why.

Related Topics: jay carney, transparency, visitor logs, White House, White House
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “right now it’s routine for White House officials to meet off campus with these people”
    .
    How do you know that MS? And if you know that then isn’t that transparent?

  • certifiablylazy

    I do wish they’d meet somewhere else, including the journalists. It’s damn hard to find a table at Starbucks and Caribou without the pols and journos poaching tables constantly.
    .
    Don’t even get me started on Bread Line.

  • http://twitter.com/michaelscherer Michael Scherer
  • gysgt213

    These are very good points.

  • Ivy_B

    Thanks, MS. Reminds me of the way the press went after Cheney demanding the release of the people he met with to decide energy policy.

    And, don’t I remember Karl Rove doing a press release about the meetings in the White House with Jack Abramoff?

  • http://tisias.wordpress.com tisias

    oh Michael you come up with the cleverest titles

  • Paul-no not that one

    Thanks for the response MS.
    .
    Stay on top of this. Please.

  • Paul-no not that one

    On a less snarky note.
    .
    You and other reporters know where they are meeting.
    .
    You see who they are meeting.
    .
    You know when they are meeting.
    .
    Is the issue that it isn’t posted online for you? That someone has to be stationed at a Starbucks to observe?
    .
    Please don’t tell us it’s because you all are fighting for “the people’s right” to transparency. Far too little of it in the very recent past.

  • afguy

    I’ve got a pressing question:
    .
    Instead of a posting about the White House “skirting transparency”, I’d like some hard data on how many in the White House wear transparent skirts.
    .
    Inquiring (also bored and twisted) minds want to know…

  • kbanginmotown

    Question: How many questions started with the words “Carney, you a$$-clown”, in the un-redacted version?

  • gysgt213

    When it comes to improving public understanding of tax policy, nothing has been more troubling than the deeply flawed coverage of the Wisconsin state employees’ fight over collective bargaining.
    .
    Economic nonsense is being reported as fact in most of the news reports on the Wisconsin dispute, the product of a breakdown of skepticism among journalists multiplied by their lack of understanding of basic economic principles.
    .
    Gov. Scott Walker says he wants state workers covered by collective bargaining agreements to “contribute more” to their pension and health insurance plans.
    .
    Accepting Gov. Walker’ s assertions as fact, and failing to check, created the impression that somehow the workers are getting something extra, a gift from taxpayers. They are not.
    .
    Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin’ s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.
    .
    How can that be? Because the “contributions” consist of money that employees chose to take as deferred wages – as pensions when they retire – rather than take immediately in cash. The same is true with the health care plan. If this were not so a serious crime would be taking place, the gift of public funds rather than payment for services.
    .
    Here are some other examples of inaccurate reporting of the issue, followed by a critique and a simple solution.
    .
    Todd Richmond of the Associated Press reported on Feb. 20 that the governor wants state workers “to contribute more to health care and pension costs.” Richmond has repeatedly used variations of that phrase.
    .
    On Feb. 18, Michael Cooper and Katherine Q. Seelye of The New York Times reported that the legislation sponsored by Gov. Walker would “require workers to contribute more to their pension and health care plans.”
    .
    Jane Ford-Stewart of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel’ s on-line community news service reported Feb. 22 on “an effort by Gov. Scott Walker to get state employees to contribute more toward their health insurance and pensions so that the costs are more in line with contributions by workers in the private sector.”
    .
    Politifact.com has a Wisconsin operation and it was also among those that got it wrong – 100 percent dead wrong — because it assumed the facts as stated by Gov. Walker and failed to question the underlying premise. Further, contrived assumptions make it is easy for the perpetrators of the misrepresentation to point to data that support a false claim, something Politifact missed entirely, on at least two occasions, in proclaiming false statements to be true.
    .
    http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/UBEN-8EDJYS?OpenDocument

  • 3xfire3

    Liberals = I will defend the Obama Administration Right or Wrong. I am a Partisan Ideologue and truth and honesty are of no important to me. Whenever someone points out a situation where my side is wrong, I will always defend my team and attempt to redirect the criticism back at some Republican. If my side is wrong it’s perfectly OK with me as long as the results fit my political beliefs.
    .
    After all “the end justifies the means”.

  • afguy

    3x, you need more coffee.
    .
    Obviously, the hang-over hasn’t gone away entirely because you’re projecting again..

  • 3xfire3

    afguy,
    .
    You still can’t handle the truth. Too bad.

  • rwbbinla

    @7.0 3xfire3.. All the liberals here have been remiss. Please show them the example where you disagreed with your “side”, after all, some people need to be instructed with your superior intellectual abstraction from political bias. I know you can do it!

  • afguy

    As soon as I actually see some, I’ve got it covered…

  • square1

    From Politico:

    But that’s not how it feels to some of the lobbyists who’ve been there.

    Really? Some of them feel like that?

    They say the White House is generally happy to meet with them and their clients once or twice but get leery when an issue requires multiple visits. These lobbyists say it is then that phone calls or meetings seem to be pushed outside the White House gates.

    They say that?

    “I’ve not seen The Washington Post test enforced so ritualistically as this White House,” said one lobbyist, who regularly does business with the administration.

    Some lobbyists gripe about the hypocrisy of publicly bashing lobbyists while privately holding off-the-books meetings with them

    And some readers gripe about the hypocrisy of journalists publicly bashing politicians for a lack of “transparency” in fully disclosing who they are meeting with while the journalists refuse to fully identify who the politicians meet with and refuse to identify their sources.

    lobbyists are particularly stung by what they see as a double standard, with Obama bashing their profession as part of what’s wrong with Washington while his staff routinely sits down with lobbyists to discuss key issues.

    And some readers are particularly stung by what they see as a double standard, with journalists bashing the White House’s failure to identify everyone the White House staffers meet with as part of what’s wrong with Washington while journalists routinely uncover that same information, fail to completely report it, and keep their sources a secret.

  • 3xfire3

    rwbbinia,
    .
    I do not blindly defend every conservative that is discussed on this blog. You have never seen me defend Russ Limbaugh for example. I have criticized conservative commenters here on the swamp when I believed they have been over the top in their comments.
    .
    I cannot say the same for you or most liberals on this site. Most liberals on this site are pure ideologues. They, like you, are totally closed minded. There are only a few Liberals on this site that I respect. Liberals like Stuart who I have been able to find common ground with on some issues and if we disagree we still respect the others opinion.
    .
    Open your mind and let some fresh air in before you become totally brain dead.

  • np042

    And none of those are examples of when you did those things. It’s one thing to say “I criticize other conservative commentators…” while it’s quite another to actually point out a time that has happened. Have you ever criticized textee’s postings? How about freeinpa’s constant likening of liberalism to the mentally disabled? Rusty’s constant use of the word “libtard”?

  • 3xfire3

    npo42,
    .
    “Have you ever criticized textee’s postings? How about freeinpa’s constant likening of liberalism to the mentally disabled? Rusty’s constant use of the word “libtard”?”
    .
    Yes I have criticized textee before when his posts have been over the top. As far as freeinpa and Rusty, I find their comments to be no worse than those made nearly every day by many of the Liberals on this site.
    .
    Can you name me a liberal on this site that you have criticized when they made over the top comments?

  • http://twitter.com/michaelscherer Michael Scherer

    Paul-no, We know that meetings are happening, but we don’t know where they are meeting or when specifically. I will shock you by saying that I don’t stake out Caribou coffee. To the extent that we know its because lobbyists are spilling the beans, which is not exactly transparency. That is much more the status quo. That said, the WAVE records are a huge step forward. It’s just they have not solved the problem of transparency.

  • m0mentom0ri

    3x, do you actually read any of the posts here? I know it flip your right wing script, but liberals have been very critical of Obama lately. I know you’ve been told that “liberals worship Obama like he’s the Messiah”, and I get that your not allowed to critically think for yourself as a card carrying member of the Glenn Beck Party, but I have no idea how you can come here, day after day, and listen to liberals complaining about the media, complaining about the Dems in congress, and complaining about the current administration, and STILL think that all liberals are mindlessly following Obama.
    .
    3x, You’re either not reading the posts here, or you’re incapable of understanding observed phenomena that’s contrary to what you’ve been told by right-wing media. Either way, you come off sounding like Rush Limbaugh’s pet budgie.

  • np042

    Again, saying “Yes I have…” is not the same as showing where you have.
    .
    As far as me, I was not the one who made the claim that I do something and then failed to bring any proof. The funny thing, of course, is that you automatically assume I’m a liberal because I called you out on something. The fact is that I find the far-right a) much more represented than the far-left (since everything left of center-right is extreme to you) and b) the far left is still much less, and not known for, bigoted, xenophobic, etc.
    .
    I’ll humor you, since you asked, because otherwise you will never provide a straight answer. Personally I find some of shepwong’s stuff a bit out there, but there is a big difference between viewing someone’s actions as traitorous as opposed to political beliefs being a sign of mental illness or corruption. Patricksartor is also grating at times, (especially the bold, oh my God the bold) mostly when engaging in a flame war with an opposite on the right. It serves no purpose and both sides are equally at fault, but neither can let the other have the last word.
    .
    The thing is, however, that I don’t say anything because it would just be adding extra noise that is unecesarry. There’s no reason to add more static to a flame war and shep is entitled to his opinions. (Unlike the freepers and Rusties, he may reach the edge but usually never over it)
    .
    Your turn.

  • 3xfire3

    npo42,
    .
    Apparently you confuse facts with perceptions and opinions.
    .
    Perceptions are not reality but what someone believes to be reality from their own life experiences and political views.
    .
    Your perceptions of comments from the right and left are biased by your own political views and opinions of reality. This is true for all of us. Some of us are more open to the views of others and some are not.
    .
    It is my perception [opinion] that liberals on this site tend to be more ideologues than do conservatives. It is also my perception that Liberals on this site tend to show personal hate towards conservatives and demonize them in most of their posts.
    .
    It is my perception that conservatives tend not to be haters of those that they disagree with politically. They just believe they are wrong in their political views.
    .
    Liberals tend to believe that if someone disagrees with their political views that this is a personal attack. It is not. It is democracy in action.
    .
    Are far as showing you a specific post where I said textee was over the top in his comments, I do not keep records of these posts and will not waste my time looking for them. You can accept my comment that textee does go over the top is some of his posts or you can call me a liar if that makes you happy. I really don’t care.

  • stuartzechman

    momentomori is right, 3xfire3.
    .
    At this stage of the game, many movement liberals I know don’t plan to show up to vote for Obama in 2012.
    .
    When partisan Democrats attack these liberals, saying “How will you live with yourself, if the Republicans take over both houses of Congress and the Presidency?“, these liberals reply with a caustic “The last time the Republicans controlled everything, we got Medicare Part D. What’s going to happen next time? You think they’ll pass socialized medicine?
    .
    That’s when the partisans start yammering about how the dreaded Tea Party Republicans are sure to repeal the PPACA (health care law), to which liberals respond by saying “That disgraceful non-solution? What’s worse about the individual mandate: the sheer volume of corporate welfare involved, or that it stands as living proof of Obama’s willingness to tell colossal campaign lies?
    .
    At this point in the argument, the partisans bring up the Iraq invasion, at which point the liberals bring up all of the establishment Democrats who voted to authorize it, demonstrating that it’s worse to have the kind of Dem who votes that way in office than it is to have a Republican Administration.
    .
    I know that this is all anecdotal, and not real data, but do you see what I mean, 3xfire3?
    .
    Now, if you were to somehow be granted interviews with the lofty elites in the capital and New York City, the establishment “liberals” like Lord Larry O’Donnell of MSNBC, or Newsweek’s shill Jonathan Alter, or TIME’s old-school DLC ideologue Joe Klein (who can’t even be bothered to conceal his hatred of us movement liberals much of the time), they would tell you something different, but that’s because they live in an elite bubble, and don’t have much day-to-day contact with ordinary people outside of these privileged social circles we movement liberals like to call “the Village.”
    .
    The Village “liberals” are different than actual liberals out in the country. As it happens, these are the sorts who are virtually indistinguishable from partisan Democrats, and so their primary concern is keeping Dems –any kind of Dem, even the Iraq-war voting, Wall Street-loving, bank-bailing, domestic spy program-authorizing, ordinary people-screwing kind– in political power. It’s their jobs, basically.
    .
    To real, honest-to-God liberals out here, “Change We Can Believe In” is sick joke. I’ve seen a number of folks on the left who were weirdly militant in their support of Obama during the Dem primary season turn complete 180 degrees, and are now weirdly militant in their opposition to the Administration. It’s bizarre. Then again, given the conduct of the Administration during the Obama-GOP tax deal, it’s not that odd, I suppose.
    .
    Anyway, I think that momentori is making a credible observation, 3xfire3, you should probably take that into account.

  • http://tisias.wordpress.com tisias

    greater transparency is trying to live up to a standard of truth and accountability, which, more often than not, holds no incentives and is overly optimistic in an often disappointing reality.

  • 3xfire3

    Stuart,
    .
    Thanks for your comments. I know that I tend to lump all Liberals together. Your comments are helpful and a lot more informative than those by momentomori.
    .
    It does seem like many liberals on this site will defend the Obama Administration right or wrong. Maybe all the people I think are liberals on this site are not movement liberals such as you. I find I can sometime find common ground with you. Most others on this site are more interested in demonizing all conservatives.
    .
    Stuart could you give me a good definition of “movement liberal”?

blog comments powered by Disqus