Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T12:32:32.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Freedom of Information Act and Political Science Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2022

Morley Segal
Morley Segal*
Affiliation:
American University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

What is the logic of an information law which:

• makes available a State Department Memorandum rationalizing the President’s use of troops overseas without congressional consent, but has thus far failed to make available World War II documents concerning allegedly repatriated Russian soldiers,

• which makes available a Federal Trade Commission staff study on auto warranties but leaves numerous other advisory studies difficult to locate and their status unclear,

• breaks loose a key Federal Reserve Board vote but has thus far left the votes and minutes of other multi-member agencies difficult to locate?

The answer is that the logic is not in the law itself, but in the kind of pressure put upon the bureaucracy to follow it. The Freedom of Information Act which became effective July 4, 1967 is not self enforcing. It depends upon the initiative and energy of those who want government information, giving them a tool with which to prod an unwilling bureaucracy. To date, this prodding has come principally from the press and interested business organizations; meaning that the information made available has been oriented toward the single news story, often an expose, or the isolated regulatory decision. This is certainly a valuable use of the Act but the pressure of interested citizens is not sufficient to force the government to make available the scope of information and indexing needed for scholarly research.

The organized scholarly community, while traditionally supporting the principle of free access to government information, has made no systematic effort to either assess the newly available information or to pry loose information presently withheld.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , Summer 1969 , pp. 315 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 H. R. 10401, a bill to extend coverage to the District of Columbia was introduced by Congressman John Moss (Dem.-Calif.) April 22, 1969.

2 There are two key government documents concerning the Freedom of Information Act (1) U.S., Congress, House, Committee on Government Operations, Foreign Operations and Government Operations Subcommittee, Freedom of Information Act (Compilation and Analysis of Departmental Regulations Implementing 5 U.S.C. 552), 90th Congress, 2d Session, 1968. U.S. Government Printing Office, $1.25. This contains the Act itself, many of the implementing regulations, a short review” of the law after one year, an index to implementing regulations printed in The Federal Register and excerpts from The Attorney General’s Memorandum. This memorandum is the second key source.

U. S. Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Memorandum on the Public Information Section of the Administrative Procedure Act, Washington, Government Printing Office, $.25.

3 This provision is for the citizen not the researcher. It excludes the requirement to print information which might benefit a person. It allows the agency to substitute “actual and timely notice” for publication, Attorney General’s Memorandum, p. 12.

4 Committee on Government Operations, Freedom of Information Act, pp. 311–313 Google Scholar, Congressman John Moss (D-Calif.), author of the original Act is Chairman of the Committee on Government Operations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and Government Information, popularly known as “The Moss Committee” or the “Freedom of Information Committee.” This subcommittee has taken a strong role in encouraging full implementation of the Act.

5 This survey will include the number of unanimous and non-unanimous votes, availability and forms of votes, minutes and opinions, preliminary assessment of lines of dissent and cleavage within each agency.

6 The basis for the system of security classification including the precise definition of “Top Secret”, “Secret” and “Confidential” is Executive Order 10501, Safeguarding Official Information in the Defense of the United States, originally printed in The Federal Register, Vol. 18, Nov. 10, 1953, p. 7049. Later revisions and supporting information in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Operations, 87th Congress, 2nd Session, House Report 2456, Safeguarding Official Information in The interests of the Defense of the United States (The Status of Executive Order 10501) Government Printing Office 1962.

7 Epstein vs. Resor, 296 F.Supp. 214 (1969).

8 U. S. Congress, House Committee on Government Operations, 86th Congress, 2d Session, Federal Statutes On The Availability of Information (Committee Print 1960).

9 Notes, “Freedom of Information, The Statute and Regulations,” The Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. ivi, November 1967, p. 45.

10 Attorney General’s Memorandum, p. 24.

11 University of Missouri, School of Journalism, Freedom of Information Center, How To Use The Federal Records Law (an information kit), Columbia, Missouri, $5.00.

12 For a concise summary of decisions and pending cases see The FOI Law Goes To Court, Freedom of Information Center, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, n.d.