After calling us cynical, and correctly pointing out that we had invited readers to "call us cynical," it is stated by 4&20 that Montana Headlines "fails to admit that the Sunlight Foundation's project is, well, a good thing." Hm. Well, that is probably true, and so here we go: it is a good thing.
It is a good thing, that is, when one keeps in mind just what it is and what its limitations are. Would we rather that C-Span coverage of the U.S. Congress (the equivalent example that we used) disappear, or would we say that it isn't "a good thing?" No, because there are certainly things that can be learned from that coverage -- they are just very limited, and there is much potential for misleading theatrics and irrelevant information.
Nisha Thompson uses the example that Rep. Dan Burton missed 19 votes because of golfing in the Bob Hope Classic, and that this had been going on for years without any of his constituents knowing it. This kind of information is hardly without value, and as the link points out, many conservative groups are also attentive to the issue of absentee Congressmen.
Montana Headlines recalls, for instance, that there is a great advantage for Senators with Presidential ambitions to miss as many votes as possible (can anyone say John Edwards?) So we suppose it's not a bad thing to have the opportunity for constituents to remind legislators of their duties in Washington. It's not fair to a hard-working Senator like Hillary Clinton (no, we're not being facetious) that she has a lot more votes to answer for than does the "populist" opponent to her left.
It was also pointed out that "a constituent can go online and see that Jon Tester is meeting with some Montana coal lobby and call his office to ask what happened at that meeting..." In our last post, we pointed out that Tester's office had posted that he was on the floor of the Senate on the evening of March 5th when according to other accounts, he was hob-nobbing in New York City that evening. We're curious: did any of the people who are ardent advocates of the importance of Jon Tester's schedule call Tester's office to ask where he was that evening? Did they ask who paid for the trip, who attended the event, whether fundraising went on, whether there were private meetings with others before or after that function in New York, and why it wasn't on the schedule?
We didn't, mainly because we aren't numbered amongst the ardent advocates of the importance of Sen. Tester's posted schedule. That piece of information simply confirmed us in our view of the limited value of the posted schedule and wasn't particularly surprising. We imagine that few, if any, strong Tester supporters made that phone call, mainly because they trust Sen. Tester's motives and truthfulness, assume that there is an innocent explanation, and besides he publishes more of his schedule than everyone else put together -- no need to bug the Senator. There are others who are not as trusting of Sen. Tester (that's why we voted for Burns in spite of the obvious shortcomings), but who probably doubted the value of playing 20 questions with Tester's staff over this matter -- so, no point in bugging the Senator.
Finally, it was implied that Montana Headlines stated that "more information creates more corruption." Someone may have said that, but it isn't to be found in our post. What we stated was the obvious fact that there are always going to be conversations, meetings, and discussions that aren't going to be public knowledge, and publishing a schedule won't change that fact. We don't believe that private meetings are, by definition, evidence of corruption. One can engage in corruption in a non-publicized meeting -- and one can engage in corruption in a meeting that is on a schedule or that is mislabeled.
We stated that a schedule can give a false sense of security -- this isn't a reason not to have one, but it is a reason to understand its limited value as a tool to determine whether a legislator is up to no good. There is nothing wrong with Sen. Tester publishing a schedule, and in fact there are good things about it. Perhaps curious bloggers will start e-mailing or calling the Montanans listed on Tester's schedule as having met with him, and asking them what was said in that meeting. Perhaps the responses to those e-mails and phone enquiries will be posted on the internet, and we will all be enlightened.
We do question whether the Tester schedule is such a qualitative break-through in transparency that it justifies its rock-star treatment in the liberal blogophere. Maybe it does -- we'll see.
Nisha Thompson states that "the goal was never to create a gotcha mentality but to start a conversation on how people should be interacting with their elected officials." We're glad to hear that, and we would agree that such a conversation is not without merit. Part of the point of our last post was that we Montanans already have very good access to our elected officials -- it can always be improved, though, and if publishing schedules makes an improvement, then good.
What drew our initial response was how we perceived the happenings in the Montana blogosphere. It has looked like hammering on Rep. Rehberg in what can only be described as a "gotcha" manner, then extrapolating from that to proclaim: "see, he's dishonest." In light of the rhetoric in which all of this has been encased, it is not particularly surprising that Rehberg's offices have received this as harassment to be brushed off, rather than as a sincere desire for civil conversation that should gladly be engaged.
