Editorial: White House favors secrecy, privilege

25 Apr 2008 // When people visit the White House to discuss public policy with the president, is a log of the meeting a public or private matter? The question seems simple enough. In a country where the First Amendment guarantees the right of people to know what their government is doing, the answer should be easy. Of course, the log book is public. Why wouldn't it be?

President Bush begs to differ. He thinks the meetings are private, a matter of executive privilege.

Who visits the president?

When reporters for The Washington Post, Judicial Watch and the nonpartisan group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington asked for the visitor logs, the administration directed the Secret Service to turn the calendars over to the White House so it could refuse the request. Now the matter is in a federal appeals court where a panel of judges heard arguments from both sides on Monday.

In December, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth said the visitor logs are innocuous and the White House cannot keep them from the public. The Post and other groups wanted the records to determine how often religious leaders like James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Gary Bauer of American Values had visited the White House. They also wanted to know how often convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff had visited the White House.

Judge Lamberth said that releasing the visitor logs doesn't harm the government since only the name, date and time of visit are released. Neither the purpose nor the nature of the visit is revealed.

President Bush argues that releasing the lists compromises his ability to privately discuss policy issues. He argued the same thing when he first assumed office and held private discussions about energy policy with oil-company executives. When Mr. Bush campaigned for the presidency in 2000, he chastised his predecessor for being secretive and said that his presidency would be notable for its access and transparency.

Stain on Bush's record

His actions in office, however, have been exactly the opposite. More than any president in recent memory, President Bush has exerted a claim for sweeping executive authority, including to shroud meetings in secrecy, eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and shield the White House from the decisions it makes. The policy of secrecy ill serves Mr. Bush and will be a stain on his record.

There is little to be gained from asserting that mere names of people who visit the White House is a matter of executive privilege. President Ronald Reagan said the White House belonged to the American people and that he and his wife, Nancy, were its caretakers. He was a president who understood that serving the people means being accountable to them.