Open government

A new era of cutting-age technology begins Nov 13 at the United States Supreme Court, as the public for the first time will be able to access briefs and other case documents on the court’s website. Unimpressed? Perhaps the reader, in the waning second decade of the 21st century, thinks such an innovation might have been implemented, say, many years ago, as it was for the rest of the federal courts. “The courts will often choose to be late to the harvest of American ingenuity,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote when announcing the online project at the end of 2014.

In so many ways, the underlying conditions of US democracy need repair. Among American citizens, ideological and philosophical divisions seem insurmountably sharp; among their representatives in Washington, compromise appears impossible. Whatever side you were on in last year’s election, it’s clear that the campaign brought these problems dramatically to the surface of our national life; it’s also clear that these challenges would have been with us, in equal measure, no matter who won. And so, as we approach the one-year anniversary of the election, we asked dozens of writers and artists to look beyond the day-to-day upheavals of the news cycle and propose one idea that could help fix the long-term problems bedeviling American democracy. The result: 38 conservative, liberal, practical, creative, broad, specific, technocratic, provocative solutions for an unsettled country.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has officially declared an end to the pilot project of publishing the text of meeting items three weeks before they are voted, but only to declare it his policy going forward. That came at a press conference following the FCC's public meeting Oct 24.

The chairman early on instituted the test as part of his transparency agenda. Asked at the meeting about the status of the test, he first said it had been a success and making it permanent was certainly something he was willing to discuss with his colleagues and "working with the commission staff to determine the feasibility and benefits of doing so. But after a pause, he continued: "In fact, you know what, let's just go ahead and declare the pilot over. It is not the official policy of the FCC to release these at least three weeks in advance of the monthly meeting." As leader of the loyal opposition under former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, Ajit Pai was a frequent critic of FCC process, saying it lacked transparency—he has long argued for letting the public know what is being voted on at public meetings—and said it was the kind of regulatory certainty that a competitive marketplace needs.

In a first for the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, oral argument in a major abortion case, Garza vs. Hargan Oct. 20 will be live streamed after Fix the Court, which advocates for greater access to federal courts, made the request. Chief Judge Merrick Garland issued the decision in a one-sentence letter to Fix the Court executive director Gabe Roth, saying simply: "Thank you for your letter of today's date, requesting that the court provide a live audio feed of arguments  in Garza v. Hargan, 17-5236, tomorrow.

The Connected Government Act (S 1769) would require all federal agencies that create or update a website intended for use by the public to ensure that the website is mobile friendly. A mobile friendly website is defined as one that is configured in such a way that it may be easily navigated and viewed on a smartphone, tablet computer, or similar mobile device. In addition, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the General Services Administration (GSA), would report on the implementation of these requirements within 18 months.

Enacting S. 1769 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO estimates that enacting S. 1769 would not increase direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028. S. 1769 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

The Supreme Court is setting aside a request to live stream its oral arguments. The attorney for Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. told members of Congress that live streaming even the audio portion of its oral arguments might impact the outcome. "The Chief Justice appreciated and shares your ultimate goal of increasing public transparency and improving public understanding of the Supreme Court," Roberts' attorney, Jeffrey P. Minear, wrote the four members of Congress seeking to have the court's gerrymandering case live streamed in audio. "I am sure you are, however, familiar with the Justices' concerns surrounding the live broadcast or streaming of oral arguments, which could adversely affect the character and quality of the dialogue between the attorneys and Justices. Consequently, the Court is unable to accommodate your request."

At least six of President Trump’s closest advisers occasionally used private email addresses to discuss White House matters, current and former officials said.

Stephen Bannon, the former chief White House strategist, Reince Priebus, the former chief of staff, advisers, Gary Cohn and Stephen Miller, and Ivanka Trump have all used personal email accounts to conduct government business. Officials are supposed to use government emails for their official duties so their conversations are available to the public and those conducting oversight. But it is not illegal for White House officials to use private email accounts as long as they forward work-related messages to their work accounts so they can be preserved.

Presidential son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner has corresponded with other administration officials about White House matters through a private email account set up during the transition, part of a larger pattern of Trump administration aides using personal email accounts for government business.

Kushner uses his private account alongside his official White House email account, sometimes trading emails with senior White House officials, outside advisers and others about media coverage, event planning and other subjects. “Mr. Kushner uses his White House email address to conduct White House business,” said Abbe Lowell, a lawyer for Kushner. “Fewer than 100 emails from January through August were either sent to or returned by Mr. Kushner to colleagues in the White House from his personal email account. These usually forwarded news articles or political commentary and most often occurred when someone initiated the exchange by sending an email to his personal rather than his White House address.” Aides who have exchanged emails with Kushner on his private account since President Donald Trump took office in January include former chief of staff Reince Priebus, former chief strategist Steve Bannon, National Economic Council director Gary Cohn, and spokesman Josh Raffel. In some cases, those White House officials have emailed Kushner’s account first. At times, Bannon and Priebus have also used private email accounts to correspond with Kushner and others.

Pandering to the base is a tradition as old as politics itself. But in the social media age, it’s easier than ever for politicians to take those tailored messages—the kind they might not like to share with the whole world—and disseminate them only to the people who are most likely to agree. And targeting allows campaigns to silo thousands of possible audiences with just a click, making it harder than ever to hold politicians accountable for all of it.

Some have taken to calling this type of ad a “dark post,” an overly nefarious name for what is, in actuality, just the way digital ads operate today. Technically speaking, Trump's ad buy works the same as one for the pair of Zappos shoes that somehow follows you around the internet. You’re seeing those shoes because Facebook thinks you're in the market for shoes. But President Trump isn’t running a shoe store; still less than a year into his term, he's already running a reelection campaign. And when the president sends one subset of the population a message that the rest of the population can’t see—especially one that's at odds with reality—it feels like a fundamental failure of government transparency.

A group of Democratic senators has joined in a call for the Federal Communications Commission to allow for public "review and comment" on tens of thousands of network-neutrality complaints provided through a Freedom of Information Act request in May, saying the FCC has not provided sufficient opportunity to vet them.

They said the documents were only produced a few days before the August Open Internet Order proceeding deadline and were only posted to the FCC website recently. “Although the Commission has undertaken an historic proceeding to undo the Open Internet Order, the FCC has failed to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to comment on the tens of thousands of filed complaints that directly shed light on proposed changes to existing net neutrality protections,” they wrote in a letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. “The public deserves an opportunity to review and analyze evidence that has a direct impact on the proceeding.” The senators want Chairman Pai to tell them what efforts the FCC has taken to analyze the complaints, responses from ISPs and other documents, how it will incorporate them into the record and when, whether the FCC will issue a public notice and comment cycle on them.

Signing on to the letter were Senators Ed Markey (D-MA), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Al Franken (D-MN), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Kamala Harris (D-CA).