Obama’s Transparency Charade Continues

[Canceled2]

I did not know before reading this that: Obama Admin rescinded Bush-era disclosure requirements for labor union leaders – the same union bosses who provided over $100 million (and nearly half a million volunteers) for Obama and Democratic Congressional candidates in 2008.


A Commentary By Howard Rich

<SNIP> Obama has talked a good game on transparency, but he has done far worse than fail to keep his promise and deliver a more open government – he has actually moved our country in the wrong direction.

On his first full day in office, Obama sent out a widely-publicized memo to government agencies regarding his views on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a collection of laws that exist to ensure public access to public documents.

“All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open government,” Obama wrote.

While Obama’s words were praised by both the legacy media and open government advocates, the truth is his administration’s actions have made it more difficult for citizens to access public documents.

In fact, according to a March 2010 Associated Press analysis of FOIA responses at 17 major agencies, 466,872 FOIA denials were issued during the Obama administration’s first year in office – a 50 percent increase over the previous year. Also, a March 2010 study by George Washington University’s National Security Archive found that two-thirds of federal agencies ignored Obama’s memo and made no changes whatsoever to their FOIA policy.

In addition to denying more FOIA requests, Obama has refused to call for an audit of the secret Federal Reserve Bank and rescinded Bush-era disclosure requirements for labor union leaders – the same union bosses who provided over $100 million (and nearly half a million volunteers) for Obama and Democratic Congressional candidates in 2008.

The hypocrisy on transparency doesn’t end there, though.

As part of the draconian new financial regulations Obama and his Congressional allies are imposing on the private sector, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is now virtually exempt from FOIA law. Under a little-known provision of the new law, the SEC would not have to release any information derived from “surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities” – a purposefully broad definition that encompasses virtually everything the SEC does.

“It allows the SEC to block the public’s access to virtually all SEC records,” former agency attorney turned whistleblower Gary Aguirre told FOX News. “It permits the SEC to promulgate its own rules and regulations regarding the disclosure of records without getting the approval of the Office of Management and Budget, which typically applies to all federal agencies."

In fact, within days of the new law being signed, the SEC was already turning down FOIA requests from media outlets citing the new exemption. <SNIP>

 

[Bonestorm]

I did not know before reading this that: Obama Admin rescinded Bush-era disclosure requirements for labor union leaders – the same union bosses who provided over $100 million (and nearly half a million volunteers) for Obama and Democratic Congressional candidates in 2008.

Pop Quiz: Of the 8 years that GWB was president, for how many days were the "Bush-era disclosure requirements for union leaders" in effect?

 

[Annie]

Pop Quiz: Of the 8 years that GWB was president, for how many days were the "Bush-era disclosure requirements for union leaders" in effect?

So you are in favor of the administration checking on corporations but not union finances?

 

[DamnYankee]

Since when has hypocrisy bothered The Obama and his worshipers?

 

[Bonestorm]

So you are in favor of the administration checking on corporations but not union finances?

I'm in favor of receiving responses to my questions, not questions in response to my questions. You go first, then I'll answer yours.

 

[DamnYankee]

I'm in favor of receiving responses to my questions, not questions in response to my questions. You go first, then I'll answer yours.

LOL OK for you to attempt to derail the OP but not OK for someone to derail your attempt.

 

[Bonestorm]

LOL OK for you to attempt to derail the OP but not OK for someone to derail your attempt.

I addressed the only part of the OP that was not a cut and paste. Where I come from responding to what someone says is called a discussion, not a derailment.

 

[Annie]

I'm in favor of receiving responses to my questions, not questions in response to my questions. You go first, then I'll answer yours.

But you were derailing the thread, I was just derailing your derail.

 

[DamnYankee]

I addressed the only part of the OP that was not a cut and paste. Where I come from responding to what someone says is called a discussion, not a derailment.

"Bush did it too" is your position. Admit it.

 

[Bonestorm]

But you were derailing the thread, I was just derailing your derail.

Sorry. The correct answer is zero days. The regulation at issue was published January 21, 2009.

And I'm all in favor of unions reporting their finances to their members and the government. And they do, the same as they have since Bush first changed the rules for reporting in 2003.

 

[Canceled2]

Pop Quiz: Of the 8 years that GWB was president, for how many days were the "Bush-era disclosure requirements for union leaders" in effect?

You must really mean "How aweful that Obama would do this" right?

Or do you mean "to rescind this after how difficult it was to put these disclosures into place"...


NO...you mean you really want to ask "how long they were in effect before Obama helped out his party supporters"?


Which is it nigey?

 

[Canceled2]

More on disclosure

Union Members: New Disclosure Rules Reveal Where Union Bosses Spend Your Hard-Earned Wages
For the first time, federal disclosure rules are shining sunlight upon union spending priorities, and many rank-and-file members won't like what they reveal. Fortunately, they can do something about it.

Among other pursuits, unions such as the AFL-CIO and National Education Association (NEA) spent 60% or more of their discretionary dollars on partisan political activities in 2004 - 2005, compared to 40% or less on actual work-related representation activities.

The sources of this sunlight are new federal LM-2 forms, which unions have traditionally kept extremely vague in order to camouflage their political activities. Under the new rules, however, they were finally forced to come clean.

Unions originally formed for the legitimate purpose of collective bargaining on behalf of member employees for the terms and conditions of employment, including wages, hours, grievances and working conditions. In the words of AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeny, for instance, the union was "created to represent workers on the job."

The new disclosure rules, however, confirm that unions often pursue a very different agenda today. Consequently, dues-paying members can be forgiven for scratching their heads and wondering why more of their hard-earned wages are flowing to liberal political candidates and causes with which they disagree than to actual workplace issues.

By way of historical background, federal law has required unions to file annual financial reports with the U.S. Department of Labor since 1959. These reports, known as LM-2 forms, aimed to provide union members with information on how their dues were being spent. Amidst widespread corruption and criminal corrosion within unions, Congress that year passed the Landrum-Griffin Act (written largely by Senator John F. Kennedy). President Eisenhower signed the Act, believing that forcing unions to disclose their financial activities would allow members to hold them accountable and ensure that they were responsible stewards of members' hard-earned contributions.

Unfortunately, unions were able to circumvent the intent of this law by disclosing only the bare minimum of financial information. For instance, the AFL-CIO grouped large expenditures under such labels as "Educational and Publicity Expenses" as late as 2004. Consequently, even those unions that complied with the law could prevent members and the public from ascertaining how they really disbursed their money. (To see a vivid illustration of this problem, go to the Department of Labor's website at Department of Labor's website and compare the level of detail in the Service Employees International Union's ("SEIU") 2005 LM-2 to its 2004 LM-2.)

Given this poor record of financial disclosure, U.S. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, a Bush appointee, in 2004 issued a rule requiring greater disclosure by unions. The new rule aimed to achieve the underlying intent of the Landrum-Griffin Act by improving the degree of detail and transparency in reporting.

Naturally, big unions frantically protested the new disclosure rules, arguing that their record was "pretty good," and that compliance costs would be oppressive. They also deflected attention from their poor disclosure record by questioning the political motivations behind the changes. Predictably, when unions failed at the electoral level, they resorted to lawsuits.

Never mind, of course, that these same unions applauded Sarbanes-Oxley and other stringent corporate disclosure mandates. As late as March 2006, for example, the AFL-CIO implored the Securities Exchange Commission, "the AFL-CIO strongly opposes weakening Sarbanes-Oxley's crucial safeguards for the companies most likely to have internal control problems and be engaged in defrauding investors."

Apparently, what's good for the goose isn't so good for the gander in the AFL-CIO's worldview. Keep in mind that investors can freely dissociate from shady corporations, whereas many union workers face compulsory membership and dues.

Now, the rules have changed.

Even a cursory review of the AFL-CIO's new LM-2 reveals almost $3 million spent on "Production of Mail Piece on Guns and Jobs" and "Flyers/Labor Walks Support Kerry/Oppose Bush." Hunters, gun owners and even Bush voters within union ranks will be thrilled to learn that millions of their mandatory dues were spent in such a manner.

A glimpse into the Service Employees International Union's ("SEIU") LM-2s exposes literally $0 spent under the category entitled "Representational Activities," but some $27 million spent under the category entitled "Political Activities and Lobbying." The SEIU also granted $19,200 to the far-left group ACORN. That's the "workers' rights" organization that hilariously begged the Labor Department to exempt it from minimum wage laws, because compliance reduced the number of field workers it could hire.

We're not making this up.

Thanks to the new disclosure rules, workers are now much more capable of doing something about this long-festering problem. Ten years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Communication Workers of America v. Beck that unions cannot force workers to pay for activities unrelated to collective bargaining or contract negotiations. Thus, dues-paying members need not subsidize union bureaucrats' left-wing partisan lobbying or political campaigns with which they disagree. Now, workers can determine the refund to which they're entitled, and pursue their rights accordingly.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Pop Quiz: Of the 8 years that GWB was president, for how many days were the "Bush-era disclosure requirements for union leaders" in effect?

I understand that you're being the good little democratic apologist, but as a hard core Libertarian and firm believer in a constitutional government, that's a real crock of shit you're trying to pull.

the transparent crap pulled by 50 years of presidents has steadily gotten worse, but keep on keeping on with the bullshit of 'but bush' crap. let's see where that gets us.

 

[Bonestorm]

I understand that you're being the good little democratic apologist, but as a hard core Libertarian and firm believer in a constitutional government, that's a real crock of shit you're trying to pull.

the transparent crap pulled by 50 years of presidents has steadily gotten worse, but keep on keeping on with the bullshit of 'but bush' crap. let's see where that gets us.

Look, I was simply responding to a particular piece of evidence in support of the argument that Obama is not living up to his promise of transparency that is total horseshit. Frankly, I have no idea whether Obama is more or less transparent than Bush but I know that the particular item highlighted by the OP doesn't at all support the argument.

 

[Bonestorm]

More on disclosure

Union Members: New Disclosure Rules Reveal Where Union Bosses Spend Your Hard-Earned Wages
For the first time, federal disclosure rules are shining sunlight upon union spending priorities, and many rank-and-file members won't like what they reveal. Fortunately, they can do something about it.

Among other pursuits, unions such as the AFL-CIO and National Education Association (NEA) spent 60% or more of their discretionary dollars on partisan political activities in 2004 - 2005, compared to 40% or less on actual work-related representation activities.

The sources of this sunlight are new federal LM-2 forms, which unions have traditionally kept extremely vague in order to camouflage their political activities. Under the new rules, however, they were finally forced to come clean.

Unions originally formed for the legitimate purpose of collective bargaining on behalf of member employees for the terms and conditions of employment, including wages, hours, grievances and working conditions. In the words of AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeny, for instance, the union was "created to represent workers on the job."

The new disclosure rules, however, confirm that unions often pursue a very different agenda today. Consequently, dues-paying members can be forgiven for scratching their heads and wondering why more of their hard-earned wages are flowing to liberal political candidates and causes with which they disagree than to actual workplace issues.

By way of historical background, federal law has required unions to file annual financial reports with the U.S. Department of Labor since 1959. These reports, known as LM-2 forms, aimed to provide union members with information on how their dues were being spent. Amidst widespread corruption and criminal corrosion within unions, Congress that year passed the Landrum-Griffin Act (written largely by Senator John F. Kennedy). President Eisenhower signed the Act, believing that forcing unions to disclose their financial activities would allow members to hold them accountable and ensure that they were responsible stewards of members' hard-earned contributions.

Unfortunately, unions were able to circumvent the intent of this law by disclosing only the bare minimum of financial information. For instance, the AFL-CIO grouped large expenditures under such labels as "Educational and Publicity Expenses" as late as 2004. Consequently, even those unions that complied with the law could prevent members and the public from ascertaining how they really disbursed their money. (To see a vivid illustration of this problem, go to the Department of Labor's website at Department of Labor's website and compare the level of detail in the Service Employees International Union's ("SEIU") 2005 LM-2 to its 2004 LM-2.)

Given this poor record of financial disclosure, U.S. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, a Bush appointee, in 2004 issued a rule requiring greater disclosure by unions. The new rule aimed to achieve the underlying intent of the Landrum-Griffin Act by improving the degree of detail and transparency in reporting.

Naturally, big unions frantically protested the new disclosure rules, arguing that their record was "pretty good," and that compliance costs would be oppressive. They also deflected attention from their poor disclosure record by questioning the political motivations behind the changes. Predictably, when unions failed at the electoral level, they resorted to lawsuits.

Never mind, of course, that these same unions applauded Sarbanes-Oxley and other stringent corporate disclosure mandates. As late as March 2006, for example, the AFL-CIO implored the Securities Exchange Commission, "the AFL-CIO strongly opposes weakening Sarbanes-Oxley's crucial safeguards for the companies most likely to have internal control problems and be engaged in defrauding investors."

Apparently, what's good for the goose isn't so good for the gander in the AFL-CIO's worldview. Keep in mind that investors can freely dissociate from shady corporations, whereas many union workers face compulsory membership and dues.

Now, the rules have changed.

Even a cursory review of the AFL-CIO's new LM-2 reveals almost $3 million spent on "Production of Mail Piece on Guns and Jobs" and "Flyers/Labor Walks Support Kerry/Oppose Bush." Hunters, gun owners and even Bush voters within union ranks will be thrilled to learn that millions of their mandatory dues were spent in such a manner.

A glimpse into the Service Employees International Union's ("SEIU") LM-2s exposes literally $0 spent under the category entitled "Representational Activities," but some $27 million spent under the category entitled "Political Activities and Lobbying." The SEIU also granted $19,200 to the far-left group ACORN. That's the "workers' rights" organization that hilariously begged the Labor Department to exempt it from minimum wage laws, because compliance reduced the number of field workers it could hire.

We're not making this up.

Thanks to the new disclosure rules, workers are now much more capable of doing something about this long-festering problem. Ten years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Communication Workers of America v. Beck that unions cannot force workers to pay for activities unrelated to collective bargaining or contract negotiations. Thus, dues-paying members need not subsidize union bureaucrats' left-wing partisan lobbying or political campaigns with which they disagree. Now, workers can determine the refund to which they're entitled, and pursue their rights accordingly.

Actually, the rule was changed in 2003, not 2004 and the rule still remains in effect today.

 

[Bonestorm]

You must really mean "How aweful that Obama would do this" right?

Or do you mean "to rescind this after how difficult it was to put these disclosures into place"...


NO...you mean you really want to ask "how long they were in effect before Obama helped out his party supporters"?


Which is it nigey?

A simple response to my original question will suffice. You can cheat by looking at the answer. I've already posted it.

 

[Canceled2]

Actually, the rule was changed in 2003, not 2004 and the rule still remains in effect today.

Another hair splitting liberal...the article talks of when the first data was available dork~

On February 3, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) stated that it would impose a 60-day delay on implementing a final rule issued during the waning days of the Bush administration. The action was based on a memorandum signed on January 20, Inauguration Day, by Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, advising all federal agencies to extend by 60 days the effective date of regulations not yet published in the Federal Register. The administration may deny it, but the move gives every appearance of political payback.

DOL's Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) on January 16 had issued a lengthy final regulation (RIN: 1215-AB62) appearing in the January 21 Federal Register and set to take effect on February 20. The rule change would: 1) require disclosure of certain receipts and compensation not covered in changes to Form LM-2 introduced in 2003 and upheld in court two years later; and 2) authorize the department to rescind the right to file the simpler Form LM-3 if a union had been habitually delinquent or deficient. The intent was to keep union officials clear of conflicts of interest.

 

[Bonestorm]

Another hair splitting liberal...the article talks of when the first data was available dork~

On February 3, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) stated that it would impose a 60-day delay on implementing a final rule issued during the waning days of the Bush administration. The action was based on a memorandum signed on January 20, Inauguration Day, by Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, advising all federal agencies to extend by 60 days the effective date of regulations not yet published in the Federal Register. The administration may deny it, but the move gives every appearance of political payback.

DOL's Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) on January 16 had issued a lengthy final regulation (RIN: 1215-AB62) appearing in the January 21 Federal Register and set to take effect on February 20. The rule change would: 1) require disclosure of certain receipts and compensation not covered in changes to Form LM-2 introduced in 2003 and upheld in court two years later; and 2) authorize the department to rescind the right to file the simpler Form LM-3 if a union had been habitually delinquent or deficient. The intent was to keep union officials clear of conflicts of interest.

Try to follow along. If anything below confuses you please let me know and I will try to elaborate further:

1. In 2003, the Bush Administration adopted new rules for union disclosures.

2. In 2004, unions first began reporting under the new rules. That's where all that information in the second piece came from.

3. In 2009, the Bush Administration adopted additional new rules for union disclosures, effective January 21, 2009, the day after Obama's inauguration.

4. After taking office, the Obama Administration rescinded the rules effective January 21, 2009, but left in place the rules adopted by the Bush Administration in 2003.

5. Hence, to claim that Obama rescinded Bush-era disclosure requirements is a falsehood.

Got it? The writer lied to you and you believed him. You shouldn't get upset with me or try to defend the writer. You should be upset with the writer for intentionally deceiving you.

 

[Canceled2]

Try to follow along. If anything below confuses you please let me know and I will try to elaborate further:

1. In 2003, the Bush Administration adopted new rules for union disclosures.

2. In 2004, unions first began reporting under the new rules. That's where all that information in the second piece came from.

3. In 2009, the Bush Administration adopted additional new rules for union disclosures, effective January 21, 2009, the day after Obama's inauguration.

4. After taking office, the Obama Administration rescinded the rules effective January 21, 2009, but left in place the rules adopted by the Bush Administration in 2003.

5. Hence, to claim that Obama rescinded Bush-era disclosure requirements is a falsehood.

Got it? The writer lied to you and you believed him. You shouldn't get upset with me or try to defend the writer. You should be upset with the writer for intentionally deceiving you.

1. DUH nigey...you are the one trying to make it seem as though the article I posted passed the law in 2004 when it only addressed an annual report as a result of the new rule..I'd say that makes you the one in need of remedial comprehension skills.

2. Yes, but the new so called "new rule" was not a new rule, but an important modification to the real new rule! It prevented the Unions ability to simplify its reporting methods and thereby allow them to not fully comply; a tightening if you will when a weakness was found.

3. The modification was important in keeping Union money transparent so that those who pay dues could easily file a complaint and or refuse to pay dues. It was really more for the people...I'd think you'd be outraged at the political maneuvering by the Oblama admin.

Abstract: The Department of Labor’s Employment Standards Administration published a final rule on January 21, 2009, which modified the annual financial disclosure report Form LM-2 and established standards and procedures by which the Office of Labor- Management Standards, pursuant to section 208 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. 438, may revoke the authorization of a labor organization to file a simplified annual financial disclosure report, Form LM-3, and instead require it to file the more detailed Form LM-2. Through notice and comment rulemaking the Department extended the effective date of the January 21, 2009 Final Rule to April 21, 2009. The effective date and applicability date of the January 21, 2009 Final Rule were further extended through notice and comment rulemaking to October 19, 2009 and January 1, 2010, respectively. The Department has proposed withdrawing the January 21, 2009, Final Rule. The final rule was withdrawn on October 13, 2009.

 

[Bonestorm]

Well, you can lead a horse to water. . .