As we approach election day, fear of voting irregularities due to faulty machines or partisan shenanigans grow. The Internet, however, makes it easier than ever for those concerned about proper voting to coordinate with one another and investigate incidents of concern. The people behindVoterStory.org have done exactly that. have done exactly that. They are collecting the nation’s stories about voting experiences and passing them on to those who can hopefully help in each case.

It’s a nice change of pace to talk about a good piece of legislation coming out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Last week the panel approved the Open Government Act, a bill which strengthens and makes a number of key improvements to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

As we said last year in a letter to bill sponsors John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) applauding the measure, the public has a right to know what the government is doing on its behalf, and FOIA is a vital tool toward that end. The Open Government Act closes many of the loopholes left open by FOIA, and rightly takes advantage of the power of the Internet to disseminate public information.

Another welcome aspect of the measure is that it requires government agencies to respond in a timelier manner to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act. Under the bill, agencies would be required to provide information within 20 days of receiving a FOIA request or be subject to penalties.

The one catch? Timing. While we applaud the Judiciary Committee for passing the bill, it is going to be tough to get it all the way to the President’s desk in the busy days before lawmakers head home in the run-up to the midterm elections.

In a big victory for open government, the Senate unanimously passed the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S. 2590), which would significantly increase the transparency and disclosure of federal spending information.

The bill, sponsored by Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), would direct the Office of Management and Budget to create a publicly-available Web site that would list every entity receiving federal financial assistance, such as grants or contracts, and the totals awarded for each fiscal year.

The bill faced some opposition, but a strong left-right coalition led by OMB Watch and the National Taxpayers Union — and hard work by the bill’s sponsors eventually convinced leadership to bring the measure to the floor where it passed easily. CDT hopes that this coalition can stay together and put pressure on the House to resist calls to weaken this legislation, and instead approve the exact Senate language.

A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report today confirms what many in the open government community have known for some time: government agencies are not living up to their obligations under the Freedom of Information Act.

Earlier this month, we contributed to a report published by OpenTheGovernment.org, that tracked how well agencies had responded to a 2005 presidential order intended to improve the disclosure of information. The results were not good. Many agencies failed to properly respond and others lagged badly in implementing FOIA.

The GAO report offers further confirmation that government agencies haven’t made FOIA a priority. Not only are agencies not meeting their obligations, the GAO report suggests that they probably won’t unless some structure/pressure is applied to make it happen.

From the report: “Without clearly defined baselines, specific objectives, and timetables for reducing backlog, it could be challenging for agency heads, Justice, and the Congress to gauge progress in improving FOIA processes as intended by the Executive Order.”

Last week was the 40th anniversary of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a landmark law that greatly expanded the ability of ordinary citizens to learn about government activities. FOIA has been of incalculable value to students, government watchdogs, ordinary citizens and journalists who have used the law to obtain a wealth of important data about their government.

It’s distressing, therefore, that on the anniversary of this landmark law, we find that many government agencies simply aren’t living up to their basic obligations under the measure. CDT joined with several other public interest groups in contributing to a report on the topic published by OpenTheGovernment.org. The report tracks the manner in which agencies responded to a 2005 presidential order intended to improve disclosure of information. It found that many agencies failed to properly respond or are lagging in implementing FOIA.

CDT’s OpenCRS project received an interesting report this week. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently updated the report on … CRS itself. The report avoids all mention of the controversy over the fact that CRS’ public reports are made available on a Web site to Congressional staff, but this Web site is not made publicly available on the Internet. Therefore it also avoids any mention of OpenCRS.

However, it does provide a fascinating history of the organization, including this tidbit:

In 1914, Senator Robert LaFollette and Representative John M. Nelson, both of Wisconsin, promoted the inclusion in the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriations act of a provision directing the establishment of a special reference unit within the Library.

That’s right…. the famed Senator “Battlin’ Bob” was one of the originators of the concept that became CRS. Thanks to the anonymous donor who sent us this report!

You can join the cause and help us keep OpenCRS up-to-date by going to the site and seeing what reports we need and then requesting that they email it to you in electronic format.

In the 17 years since the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) first went online, it has been widely regarded as a successful program. It has been a model of how transparency alone can bring about positive changes in regulatory policy. The model is simple:

Companies that release a certain amount of toxins into the environment must report this information to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA makes this information public. Individuals can decide whether or not to live in an area based on the information. Communities can plan using the information and can pressure companies with particularly high levels, or that do not improve their releases, or that are not using new alternatives that are less harmful, etc. Companies produce less toxins because of the pressure that they feel from individuals and the community.

TRI would be a successful program even if the information were only available in reading rooms, however, the Internet has made it so that really anyone can get direct access to this important data themselves, rather than through filters. (I’m giving a lot of credit to the Internet here, but there is always a face behind the technology. Without the hard work of OMB Watch to get this information online through its RTKnet; to pressure the EPA to make it broadly available on official sites; and to keep it there, this information would very likely not be available on the Internet at all).

So, if it is such a success, why has the EPA been moving to weaken the reporting requirements by:

1. Switching from annual to biennial reporting, leaving a gap every other year during which companies could pollute as much as they want without reporting.

2. Allowing companies to release ten times the amount of toxics before detailed reporting would be required.

3. Creating a first-ever exemption on reporting the most dangerous class of chemicals-Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins (PBTs), like lead and mercury?

Good question… and one that 198 organizations led by OMB Watch (and including CDT) have been asking too!

Fortunately, Congress seems to be united against these changes.

In a little reported, but important, victory for maintaining TRI, an amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill overwhelmingly passed the House just before the Memorial Day recess. This amendment was introduced by Reps. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Hilda Solis (D-CA) who deserve praise for their leadership in protecting our right-to-know.