References: The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants citizens the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

References: While the White House press officer holds nearly daily press briefings to explain Bush Administration policy positions, this Administration has gone to great lengths to weaken the media's ability to access information. George Bush himself address rarely makes himself available to the White House press corps for open question-and-answer sessions. A January 2004 account in the New Yorker noted that "Bush had held only eleven solo press conferences, fewer than almost any modern president. Over a comparable period, his father held 71 and Bill Clinton 38." Ken Auletta, "Bush's Press Problem," January 13, 2004. When Bush himself interacts with the media, it is often with smaller, local media outlets, who are less equipped to offer well-researched questions or criticisms. Also see: Troubled ties: Godfrey Sperling, "Bush and the Press," Christian Science Monitor, May 4, 2004; Post- 9/11 security concerns provide an additional excuse to further isolate the president from the press. According to Howard Fineman, Newsweek's chief political correspondent for 20 years, "The trend line is to fewer press conferences, smaller press pools, fewer opportunities for the reporters to eyeball the president." At the same time, there's "more security, more distance, more assertiveness by the Secret Service...more isolation. The logic of security knows no limits." Quoted in Lori Robertson, "In Control," American Journalism Review, February/March 2005. For a comparison of Bush with past presidents, see: One President Who Didn't See the Press as an Enemy; Ford Had a Warm Relationship With Many Journalists," Washington Post, January 1, 2007.

Peer Review Comments: There is an extra word, "address," on Line 3 of the "Description of sources."

References: Article III of the U.S. Constitution grants authority to the Supreme Court for all cases arising under the Constitution or other laws of the United States. Section 13 of the Judiciary Act more explicitly authorizes the Supreme Court "to issue writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States." It is the 1803 Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison, however, which most definitively established the principle of judicial review. [ LINK ]; and [ LINK ]

References: The Supreme Court hears cases on actions of the executive, but does not initiate such reviews. While the Supreme Court is formally non-partisan, there is increasing concern that the Court is becoming more partisan as a result of an increasingly partisan and highly-politicized confirmation process. According to a 2005 report in the Christian Science Monitor, "Many analysts - including some of the justices themselves - have expressed concern that the increasingly partisan and ideologically driven nomination process is politicizing the court, tainting its credibility as dispassionate arbiters of the law." Warren Richey, "How a new justice could change the court," July 10, 2005.

Peer Review Comments: The U.S. Supreme Court often declines to grant cert in all types of cases, including cases involving executive actions.

The U.S. Supreme Court has developed certain judicial doctrines, such as the political question doctrine, that it cites in refusing to hear some cases involving "political" actions by the other two branches of government.

"Independent Judges, Dependent Judiciary: Institutionalizing Judicial Restraint, " John A. Ferejohn and Larry D. Kramer. [ LINK ]

References: Executive orders are commonplace in the U.S., although they rarely engender animosity from the opposition party. [ LINK ] President Bush's use of executive orders differs little from his predecessors, with Bush issuing 242 through August 16, 2007, compared to Clinton's 364 during the latter's eight year term. "Executive Orders Since President Kennedy," Associated Press, August 16, 2007.

More worrisome, however, is President Bush's increased usage of "signing statements" which allow presidents to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law the president has signed. The American Bar Association's Bipartisan Task Force calls this practice "an unconstitutional power grab," and notes that "Bush has used signing statements to challenge more than 800 laws, more than all previous presidents combined. At the same time, Bush has vetoed just one bill - the fewest number of vetoes since the 1800s, sharply limiting Congress's ability to override his judgments." Charlie Savage, "ABA Urges Halt to "Signing Statements", Boston Globe, August 09, 2006 Pg. A2.

References: The Constitution grants Congress the authority to impeach the president, vice-president and all civil officers of the United States for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The House of Representatives serves as a quasi-grand jury in deciding whether to impeach the president, while the Senate decides whether the impeachment proceedings warrant removal from office. In the case of President Clinton, the House determined he had committed perjury and referred the case to the Senate, but the Senate decided against removing him from office. [ LINK ]

Peer Review Comments: I think the indicator is looking for information on criminal investigation/prosecution as opposed to impeachment. You may want to look into issues of "qualified immunity" for public officials.

References: The Constitution grants Congress the authority to impeach the president, vice-president and all civil officers of the United States for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The House of Representatives serves as a quasi-grand jury in deciding whether to impeach the president, while the Senate decides whether the impeachment proceedings warrant removal from office. In the case of President Clinton, the House determined he had committed perjury and referred the case to the Senate, but the Senate decided against removing him from office. [ LINK ]

Peer Review Comments: Look at immunity from prosecution and "qualified immunity."

References: Certain senior officers and employees of the executive branch are required to file a public report disclosing their financial interests as well as the interests of their spouse and minor children. These include: the President; Vice President; officers and employees of the executive branch whose basic rate of pay meets a certain threshold amount (including Generals and Admirals of the uniformed services); Certain other less senior executive branch employees whose duties involve the exercise of discretion in sensitive areas such as contracting, procurement, administration of grants and licenses, and regulating or auditing non-Federal entities are required to file confidential financial disclosure reports. Office of Governmental Ethics site: [ LINK ]; U.S. Response to OAS First Round Questionnaire, [ LINK ] Note: It is the responsibility of the OGE interpret the rules pertaining to conflicts of interest, post-employment restrictions, standards of conduct and public and confidential financial disclosure statements. However, OGE has no enforcement powers, which are invested in the inspectors general offices of each executive agency. This system has been criticized for its lack of independence, as each inspector general reports to the cabinet member at the head of that agency.

References: The Office of Governmental Ethics and the agencies maintain a separate public disclosure system for Standard Form (SF) 278 Public Financial Disclosure Reports filed by high-level executive branch officials. Copies of the reports of Presidential appointees subject to Senate confirmation, designated agency ethics officials, and certain other officials are available from OGE directly by filing the appropriate access form, OGE Form 201. SF 278 reports of those officials and all other public filers are also available from the officials' own employing departments and agencies throughout the executive branch. These records are available, not under the FOIA, but the under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. appendix, § 105) and OGE's regulations thereunder, subject to certain restrictions on use (including a general prohibition on commercial use, except for dissemination to the general public by news and communications media). [ LINK ]

References: Executive branch employees are subject to restrictions on the gifts that they may accept from sources outside the Government. Generally they may not accept gifts that are given because of their official position or that come from certain interested sources ("prohibited sources"). Those sources include persons (or an organization made up of such persons) who: are seeking official action by the employee's agency; are doing or seeking to do business with the employee's agency; are regulated by the employee's agency, or have interests that may be substantially affected by performance or nonperformance of the employee's official duties. There are a number of exceptions to the ban on gifts from outside sources. These exceptions would allow the acceptance of gifts in the following circumstances: where the value of the gift is $20 or less; where the gift is based solely on a family relationship or personal friendship; where the gift is based on an outside business or employment relationship; or where the gift is in connection with certain political activities. "Summary of the Executive Branch Standards of Ethical Conduct," [ LINK ]

New changes passed by Congress and waiting on Bush's approval would affect the executive branch as well. For example, presidential candidates would have to pay the full charter rate when flying on private jets, rather than the current practice of paying merely the price of a first class commercial ticket. "Overhauling Congressional Ethics," New York Times, August 3, 2007.

References: According to the U.S. State Department, "In the executive branch, the respective employing agency reviews the financial disclosure report of an officer or employee. Reports are reviewed for internal consistency and for facial completeness, but they are not audited. In addition to the review of the report (which can include Internet searches and other research geared towards cross-checking information with public sources), a number of other means exist to verify the information on a report. A reviewer can ask a filer questions to ensure all relevant information appears on the report and is correct. Also, the scrutiny of the media and of persons familiar with a filer can lead to allegations that a filer has omitted or misrepresented certain information on a publicly available financial disclosure report. Therefore, instead of using an independent auditor, the government relies on "public and media cultures that reward investigative reporters who uncover government scandal; that reward system gives incentive to investigative reporters to examine and investigate public financial disclosure reports closely." U.S. Response to OAS First Round Questionnaire, [ LINK ]. Former Director of the Center for Public Integrity Chuck Lewis argues, however, that a system that relies primarily on media investigation is hindered by numerous obstacles, including complicated ethics rules, vague disclosure reports (e.g., assets are listed as ranges, not discrete amounts), and the media's decreasing investment in investigative reporting. Personal interview, spring 2003.

References: Executive branch employees are subject to certain restrictions on their activity after they leave Government service. Two of the restrictions apply with respect to particular matters involving specific parties that were involved with while in Government service. If the employee's involvement in such a matter was personal and substantial, then the employee is permanently barred from representing anyone back to any Federal department, agency, or court on that same matter. If the matter was under the employee's official responsibility during the last year of Government service, then the employee is barred for two years after leaving Government service from representing anyone back to the Government on that same matter. In addition, certain high level officials are subject to a so-called "one-year cooling off period." For a period of one year after leaving a "senior" position, these officials may not make any appearance on behalf of any person (other than the United States) before his former agency with the intent to influence the agency on any matter in which that person seeks official action. "Ethics Program Topics" [ LINK ]

References: It is very common for senior agency officials to travel from industry to government and back (or to a lobbying position for industry). This "revolving door" practice has increased significantly during the Bush Administration, and its impact on policy and public confidence in government is detailed in a 2005 collaborative report written by a collection of watchdog organizations: "A Matter of Trust," [ LINK ].

References: Compared to Congress, far less controversy surrounds gifts received by members of the executive branch. As a member of the President's Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform points out "In Congress, but not in the executive branch, officials may accept luxurious travel, accommodations and meals anywhere in the world as long the trip has some official purpose, such as giving a speech or participating in a conference." Jan Witold Baran, "Can I Lobby For You?" Washington Post, January 8, 2006, B1. Nevertheless, in 2005, President Bush received $17,316 in personal gifts, according to financial disclosures released by the White House, including a $5,474 bike and $515 cycling shoes from Trek Bicycle Corp. Vice President Cheney accumulated $39,722 in gifts, including a $15,000 oil painting of his home by Thomas William Jones and a $6,125 Colt revolver from U.S. Firearms Manufacturing. Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts, "The Reliable Source," Washington Post, May 17, 2006. And in some cases, the "personal friend" exception can be used as a convenient loophole to hide improper gifts. Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, "Ex-Aide To Bush Found Guilty; Safavian Lied in Abramoff Scandal," Washington Post, June 21, 2006, p. A1.

References: According to the U.S. State Department, "In the executive branch, the respective employing agency reviews the financial disclosure report of an officer or employee. Reports are reviewed for internal consistency and for facial completeness, but they are not audited. In addition to the review of the report (which can include Internet searches and other research geared at cross-checking information with public sources), a number of other means exist to verify the information on a report. A reviewer can ask a filer questions to ensure all relevant information appears on the report and is correct. Also, the scrutiny of the media and of persons familiar with a filer can lead to allegations that a filer has omitted or misrepresented certain information on a publicly available financial disclosure report. Therefore, instead of using an independent auditor, the government relies on "public and media cultures that reward investigative reporters who uncover government scandal. That reward system gives incentive to investigative reporters to examine and investigate public financial disclosure reports closely." U.S. Response to OAS First Round Questionnaire, [ LINK ]

References: Individuals who wish to receive a copy of the financial disclosure report of an individual employed by the executive branch must file a request with the agency that employs the individual or with OGE if the agency is required to transmit a copy of the report to OGE.

References: There is no online database for public disclosure forms. OGE requests are filled within one or two working days. Source: Interview with OGE official Denise Shelton, September 15, 2006

References: Reports numbering less than 333 pages are free. (The vast majority of reports fall into this category, including, for example, the report for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.) Requested reports longer than 333 pages are charged for the entire job @ 3 cents per page. Source: Interview with OGE official Denise Shelton.

References: Formal regulations and the Hatch Act divide activities devoted to government or campaign purposes. For example, official staff often resign to work on campaign activities, and are paid out of campaign funds.

The Bush Administration, however, is coming under increasing fire for blurring the line between government and partisan objectives. For example, Bush's Attorney General (and former White House aid) is under fire regarding the firing of federal prosecutors solely on partisan grounds. And government officials, including the U.S. Surgeon General, have revealed that their work was heavily controlled for partisan reasons. Congress is also investigating whether executive branch officials were encouraged to help defeat Democrats in past campaigns. "GSA Chief Grilled on GOP Political Presentation," Washington Post, March 29, 2007; "Bush Administration Under a Cloud," Associated Press, April 22, 2007. "I was muzzled: ex-surgeon general; Says Bush officials kept hot-button issues from public," Chicago Sun Times, July 11, 2007.

Peer Review Comments: The researcher makes many great points, but I think many of the comments describe improper and partisan White House interference in official government functions, not the Republican Party per se taking on the functions of the executive branch.

The Hatch Act problem of the bright line between official activities and campaign activities that the researcher references does appear to fit within this category, that is, officials taking on the functions of partisan campaigners on "company time." I would rate this overall as a 75.