Recall Hillary Clinton's Secret Health Care Task Force?

[Emit]

After reading this, I wonder, will Hillary Clinton voluntarily hand back all of those extra-constitutional executive powers claimed by President Bush? Reminds me of Cheney's efforts to keep meetings of his Energy Task Force secret.

Calling it a tour-de-force would be an understatement. There she was, the First Lady of the United States with the media and the entire Congressional leadership eating out of her hand. Flanked by Senators George Mitchell and Ted Kennedy in the Senate's Lyndon B. Johnson Conference Room, Hillary stood there as the only First Lady in history to confer with Congress on a crucial domestic policy issue. Only a week before on January 25, 1993, the new President announced that his wife would lead a task force to overhaul the nation's health care system.

~snip~

It was not a surprise when the media virtually ignored a story later in February by Washington Times reporter Paul Bedard that appeared under the headline, "First lady's task force broke law on secrecy." Bedard noted that reporters had been denied access to the first task force meeting. He went on to quote a number of attorneys and experts who asserted that this was in violation of something called the Federal Advisory Committee Act or "FACA." The little-known law, on the books since 1972, applies when a President convenes a group of people which includes private citizens to advise him on a particular issue. Although the President is advised by all kinds of formal and informal bodies within his Administration, FACA kicks in only when non-government employees or "outsiders" take part.

According to a litigation handbook published by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, FACA is "intended to protect against undue influence by special interest groups over government decision making." The law requires meetings open to the public and press, advance notice of meetings, and other "sunshine" measures. The legal experts quoted by Bedard claimed that since Hillary was not a government employee-- the First Lady does not receive a salary-- her participation in the task force triggered FACA.

~snip~

Citing FACA, a doctor's group and two public interest groups wrote the task force and asked that their staff members be allowed to attend meetings. The response from White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum asserted that FACA was never intended to apply to the First Lady and that the request was denied. The groups were encouraged to contact Nussbaum's deputy Vincent Foster should they "require further information." On February 24, 1993, Hillary and the six Cabinet members serving on the task force were sued in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by the three groups, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the American Council for Health Care Reform, and the National Legal and Policy Center.

~snip~

The irony of the situation was apparent. Robert Pear of the New York Times reported that, "Mrs. Clinton, a longtime supporter of liberal causes and 'public interest' law, might be hoist by her own petard," and quoted Peter Flaherty, NLPC President and co-author of this book, "The regime of openness in government has been built by a lot of people sympathetic to Hillary Clinton. Now she would just sweep away those statutes because they are inconvenient to her."

Flaherty was not only commenting on Hillary's apparent hypocrisy, but also on her unexpected reaction to the suit. Justice Department lawyers attacked not only the assertion that Hillary was a private citizen, but claimed that FACA was unconstitutional. They asked the judge to throw out both the lawsuit and the law. Liberals had never before attacked FACA, and this new Administration posture was certainly curious. The response was obviously improvised, demonstrating that the White House did not take the lawsuit seriously. Neither Hillary, nor task force director Ira Magaziner realized it, but this improvisation would come back to haunt them. By the time Hillary's health plan was dead, Magaziner was to find himself accused of perjury and his reputation on the verge of ruin.

~snip~

http://www.nlpc.org/hctf/tfl-09.htm

[Eagle_Eye]

1. And just what experience does Obama have in taking on the WHOLE Washington establishment?

[DerekJ]

2. THIS CAMPAIGN

HE shredded into pieces one of the most savvy, and shrewd political machines in the history of the U.S. backed by years of connections, and big financial backers. He undercut the special interest that they had to send a letter like kids to Pelosi.

Need I say more?

[Eagle_Eye]

3. I would say Clinton haters in the MSM had more to do with the 'shredding' than Mr. Obama

[DerekJ]

5. You mean those ones playing the Wright story 24/7 for 2 weeks now.

Yep I know them.

[QC]

6. Yes, the corporate media's tonguebaths suddenly turned into bites.

Just wait until he's the nominee if you think they're being rough on him now.

[QC]

4. The National Legal and Policy Center? Gimme a break.

The NLPC that fights unions and is trying to have compulsory union dues outlawed? That's your source? The same group that opposes low-cost AIDS drugs for the third world? The same group that has been trying to shut down Legal Services Corporation for years?

I thought I had seen the ultimate in wingnut propaganda being presented as truth at DU when people started posting Charles Krauthammer, but this is truly a new low.

What's next? The American Nazi Party?

[Emit]

7. It's a nasty source, for sure, and your point is well-taken. The fact of the matter, however,

is that there was no liberal watchdog group that seemed concerned about these secret meetings, so I chose to cite an original source. Are we only to be concerned when it's not one of our own holding secret meetings on such issues that should be open to the public? There are a few other sources from media accounts. The fact remains that the meetings were held in secrecy, and were eerily similar to Cheney's secret meetings.

March 6, 1993
Hillary Clinton's Health Role Disputed
By ROBERT PEAR,

A Federal district judge considered today the legality of Hillary Rodham Clinton's influential role in formulating health policy for the nation.

At times it seemed that old laws had not caught up with the new realities of the wife of the President serving as his top official adviser on the future of health care in America.

In a lawsuit filed last month, two groups of doctors and health policy advocates invoked a 1972 law, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, to insist that meetings of the President's Task Force on National Health Care Reform be "open to the public."

~snip~

At a hearing today before Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the District of Columbia, lawyers for Mrs. Clinton defended her right to develop health policy for the President in secret.

"Congress recognized historical reality," said Jeffrey S. Gutman, a Justice Department lawyer representing Mrs. Clinton. "The First Lady and the Second Lady assist the President and the Vice President in their duties. The assistance serves the public so much that public funds are warranted to assist them in their enterprise. The First Lady and the Second Lady are Government insiders, members of the Government who perform true public services in the operation of our Government."

"For the purpose of the Federal Advisory Committee Act," he added, "the First Lady is really the functional equivalent of a Government employee."

The plaintiffs acknowledged that an advisory panel composed entirely of full-time Federal employees would not be covered by the open-meeting law. But they said the First Lady could not possibly be a full-time Government employee, or else she would violate an anti-nepotism law that prohibits Federal officials from appointing close relatives to jobs under their supervision. Committee's Power Stressed

Kent Masterson Brown, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said, "The task force has been wrapped in secrecy from its beginning," and asserted that Mrs. Clinton "doesn't meet the definition" of a full-time Government employee.

"We're not talking about a First Lady placing flowers along the highway," he continued. "We're talking about a First Lady running a committee, a task force that has enormous power, that could enormously affect how we live. The work of this committee could revolutionize the way we see a doctor and could change the tax structure of the country."

~snip~

Mr. Stephanopoulos said the White House was withholding the names of 300 to 400 experts working for the task force because if their names were disclosed, "they would become subject to lobbying, to enormous pressure, and would not be able to do the work they have to do in a short period of time."

Conservatives relished the possibility that Mrs. Clinton, a longtime supporter of liberal causes and "public interest law," might be hoist with her own petard. 'Inconvenient' Statutes

"The regime of openness in government has been built by a lot of people sympathetic to Hillary Clinton," said one plaintiff, Peter T. Flaherty, who is president of the National Legal and Policy Center. "Now she would just sweep away those statutes because they're inconvenient to her." ...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE3DE113BF935A35750C0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

1993 Clinton health care plan

~snip~

Litigation

The First Lady's role in the secret proceedings of the Health Care Task Force also sparked litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in relation to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) which requires openness in government. The Clinton White House argued that the Recommendation Clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution would make it unconstitutional to apply the procedural requirements of FACA to Hillary's participation in the meetings of the Task Force. Some constitutional experts argued to the court that such a legal theory was not supported by the text, history, or structure of the Constitution.<13>Ultimately, Hillary Clinton won the litigation when the D.C. Circuit ruled narrowly that the First Lady of the United States can be deemed a government official (and not a mere private citizen) for purposes of not having to comply with the procedural requirements of FACA.<14>

In 1993, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, along with several other groups, filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and Donna Shalala‎ over closed-door meetings related to the health care plan. The AAPS sued to gain access to the list of members of the task force. Judge Royce C. Lamberth found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded $285,864 to the AAPS for legal costs; Lamberth also harshly criticized the Clinton administration and Clinton aide Ira Magaziner in his ruling.<15> Subsequently, a federal appeals court overturned the award and the initial findings on the basis that Magaziner and the administration had not acted in bad faith...<16>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Clinton_health_care_plan

Cheney's Energy Task Force

~snip~
Most of the activities of the Energy Task Force had not been disclosed to the public, even though Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests (since 19 April 2001) have sought to gain access to its materials. The organisations Judicial Watch and Sierra Club launched a law suit (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: Judicial Watch Inc. v. Department of Energy, et al., Civil Action No. 01-0981) under the FOIA to gain access to the task force's materials. On 5 March 2002 the US Government was ordered to make a full disclosure; this has not happened, pending appeal. In the Summer of 2003 a partial disclosure of these materials was made by the Commerce Department. This resulted in the release of documents, maps, and charts, dated March 2001, of Iraq's, Saudi Arabia's and United Arab Emirates' oil fields, pipelines, refineries, tanker terminals and development projects. That case eventually went to the Supreme Court and the ruling was to send the case back to the Court of Appeals.

On April 4, 2001, representatives of 13 environmental groups, including Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth and Anna Aurilio of the U.S. Public Interest Group, met with the Task Force (although not with Vice President Cheney personally). <1> Environmental groups have speculated that this meeting was an attempt to appease them, since it is reported that a draft paper had already been produced at the time of this meeting and that half of the meeting was spent on various members introducing themselves. No further meetings between the task force and the environmental groups were reported, although there had been at least 40 meetings between the task force and representatives of the energy industry and its interest groups <1>~snip~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_task_force

Cheney Energy Task Force

~snip~
In April 2001, the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, sought to obtain the records of the task force meetings. <3> In July 2001 Judicial Watch filed suit on the grounds that the administration was not "in compliance with the Federal Advisory Commission Act (FACA), which mandates that certain documents, task force members, meetings, and decision-making activities be open to the public." <4> Judicial Watch argued that the acting as energy lobbyists -- "regularly attended and fully participated" in the group's meetings held behind closed doors, and were in fact members of the group. The Sierra Club also filed suit. (The two actions were later merged.) "At issue is whether Cheney allowed private energy lobbyists and big-name campaign contributors to participate in the work of the group, and if so, whether that information should be made public," UPI reported. <5>...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cheney_Energy_Task_Force