Keeping Dick Cheney's Secrets
The New York Times
Editorial
December 11, 2002
In a ringing victory for special-interest lobbyists, a federal court in Washington
has thrown out a lawsuit seeking access to the records of Vice
President Dick Cheney's energy task force. In reaching its conclusion the court
dismissed the investigative authority of the General Accounting
Office and, by extension, of Congress. The ruling is wrong on the law and
a blow to the cause of ethics in government. It should be reversed on
appeal.
The General Accounting Office sued to force Mr. Cheney to
release records identifying who met with his task force as it developed the Bush
administration's energy policy. The accounting office is acting at the behest
of members of Congress who charge that the task force met with
Republican campaign contributors from big business, but with
almost no environmentalists, when it drew up its package
of industry-friendly energy
proposals.
Judge John Bates, who was named to the bench by President Bush,
refused to consider the merits of the case, holding instead that the accounting
office had no standing to sue. But his decision ignores the fact that the
General Accounting Office was established by Congress for the express
purpose of helping it to investigate and analyze matters like this.
The law requires the executive branch to furnish its records when
asked to do so.
The Bush administration hailed the ruling as an endorsement of the
president's right to "receive unvarnished advice." But the court did not say the
administration had a right to withhold the information, only that the accounting
office is not the proper party to raise the issue.
From the beginning, the most troubling part of this case has been the
administration's lack of appreciation for the concept of open government. This
case is not about the advice the president receives from trusted advisers
in the inner sanctums of the White House. It concerns access to basic
information about a task force that took extensive testimony from members
of the private sector. The public has a right to know what businesses and
special interests it heard from, and whether Mr. Cheney was seeking information
from every side of the issue.
The dismissal of the accounting office's suit comes while another
Washington court is considering a challenge to the McCain-Feingold campaign
finance law. Both cases focus on the disturbing role campaign contributions
play in setting government policies. The administration may choose to
see this week's decision as a win, but it is a crushing loss for the public's right to know.
nytimes.com
Copyright The New York Times Company |
