• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP lawmakers liken EPA info tactics to IRS targeting of Tea Party

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
25,357
Reaction score
11,557
Location
Post-Trump America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
In a letter to Acting EPA Administrator Bob Perciasepe on Friday, four Republicans accused the agency of routinely waiving fees for environmental groups who seek documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) but making conservative think tanks and state and local governments pay full price.

The legislators pointed to data that show that 92 percent of all fee waivers granted by the EPA were to requests from environmental groups.


Read more: GOP lawmakers liken EPA info tactics to IRS targeting of Tea Party - The Hill's RegWatch


Letter: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=81b4a3d3-f18c-4ee5-95c1-b1bbd2d1e27a

Data: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=ae65463f-a4d7-47f2-b93b-054f6236a4de

My revelation: Who knew Conservatives had environmental groups?
 
Re: Scandal 4: EPA Targets Conservative Groups

Well, we're busy reorganizing. The old Heritage Foundation is becoming the Environmental Legacy Foundation, and so on.
 
Re: Scandal 4: EPA Targets Conservative Groups


It's alot like the EPA shutting down coal and oil projects over a death of an endangered or threatened species while giving wind and solar plants a free pass to smash desert tortoises and chop up eagles.
 
Re: Scandal 4: EPA Targets Conservative Groups

The EPA waives FOIA fees for groups that have a legitimate, identified purpose for gathering the information requested. One criteria is that it must show some sort of goal of improving public knowledge.

A group making these FOIA requests for the purpose of checking on the FOIA process at the EPA? Doesn't meet this criteria.

Conservative groups making redundant, overreaching, malicious FOIA requests for the purpose of slowing down actual work? Also doesn't meet this criteria.
 
Re: Scandal 4: EPA Targets Conservative Groups

The EPA waives FOIA fees for groups that have a legitimate, identified purpose for gathering the information requested. One criteria is that it must show some sort of goal of improving public knowledge.

A group making these FOIA requests for the purpose of checking on the FOIA process at the EPA? Doesn't meet this criteria.

Conservative groups making redundant, overreaching, malicious FOIA requests for the purpose of slowing down actual work? Also doesn't meet this criteria.

I'm really not familiar with any of this (although I do know conservatives who are passionate conservationists too), so could you offer examples of conservative groups "making redundant, overreaching, malicious FOIA requests for the purpose of slowing down actual work"?
 
Re: Scandal 4: EPA Targets Conservative Groups

The EPA waives FOIA fees for groups that have a legitimate, identified purpose for gathering the information requested. One criteria is that it must show some sort of goal of improving public knowledge.

A group making these FOIA requests for the purpose of checking on the FOIA process at the EPA? Doesn't meet this criteria.

Conservative groups making redundant, overreaching, malicious FOIA requests for the purpose of slowing down actual work? Also doesn't meet this criteria.
There are nine exemptions allowed under the FOIA. Nothing you've mentioned even remotely corresponds to those exemptions.
 
Re: Scandal 4: EPA Targets Conservative Groups

I'm really not familiar with any of this (although I do know conservatives who are passionate conservationists too), so could you offer examples of conservative groups "making redundant, overreaching, malicious FOIA requests for the purpose of slowing down actual work"?

Part of the "climategate" controversy was that the CRU scientists were not responding appropriately to FOIA requests. (which the various investigations concluded was accurate, the team was not being as transparent as they should be) Several of their emails describe FOIA requests being made for things like "all emails sent by so and so," or documentation of every revision made to a particular paper, and notations as to what was changed and why. Numerous FOIA requests were made for data that... was publicly available already. Steve McIntyre apparently made an FOIA request for data he already had.

(side note: the investigations that criticized the CRU's lack of transparency also concluded that there wasn't any actual fraud. not hard to figure out if you actually track down the context of various emails)

edit: Not that I want to derail this into a discussion of climategate. I'm merely pointing out that not all FOIA requests are equal. If conservative groups failed to demonstrate some public interest behind their request, they wouldn't have the fee waived.

There are nine exemptions allowed under the FOIA. Nothing you've mentioned even remotely corresponds to those exemptions.

We're talking about waiving the fees, not denying the FOIA request entirely.
FOIA Update: New Fee Waiver Policy Guidance
 
Re: Scandal 4: EPA Targets Conservative Groups

edit: Not that I want to derail this into a discussion of climategate. I'm merely pointing out that not all FOIA requests are equal. If conservative groups failed to demonstrate some public interest behind their request, they wouldn't have the fee waived.



We're talking about waiving the fees, not denying the FOIA request entirely.
FOIA Update: New Fee Waiver Policy Guidance
I think you're missing the point on purpose here. Look. Updates to policy are not my interest. Any administration would have them. We're talking about a level playing field here, and not flexible definitions of exactly what constitutes "public interest". The point is that the policy you describe is itself discriminatory based on precisely what you contend. If you can't see that, then you're lost in the partisan soup.
 
Re: Scandal 4: EPA Targets Conservative Groups

I think you're missing the point on purpose here. Look. Updates to policy are not my interest. Any administration would have them. We're talking about a level playing field here, and not flexible definitions of exactly what constitutes "public interest". The point is that the policy you describe is itself discriminatory based on precisely what you contend. If you can't see that, then you're lost in the partisan soup.

Missing the point? You brought up exceptions to the FOIA. Completely irrelevant. Certain types of documents are not covered by the FOIA and will not be given out on request. What happened here is not that.

Is there some other point I was supposed to glean from your one sentence post?

The playing field is the same as before. If conservative groups are unable to meet the criteria for a fee waiver, they don't get a fee waiver. The group that conducted the survey made a bunch of FOIA requests... for the purposes of conducting a public survey. They didn't have actual need or desire for the information, they weren't planning on making the data available to the public. They don't get a fee waiver for that.

The other groups? What information did they request, and what did they want it for?

It's not enough to say "this group was denied the waiver more than others." Why they were denied is important.
 
Last edited:
Re: Scandal 4: EPA Targets Conservative Groups

My revelation: Who knew Conservatives had environmental groups?

you just revealed how phony your sign on and supposed lean are.
 
Re: Scandal 4: EPA Targets Conservative Groups

So the EPA isn't targeting but defending itself? Sounds more credible.
 
Re: Scandal 4: EPA Targets Conservative Groups

Moderator's Warning:
Moved to correct location
 
Re: Scandal 4: EPA Targets Conservative Groups


In conservative speak, conservation means sell to the highest bidder.

The OP proves what most progressive know: the attack on the IRS is just part of a bigger smear campaign the GOP has against all government agencies that prevent the rich from running roughshod over the rest of America. So they make stuff up. It's what conservatives do.
 
Re: Scandal 4: EPA Targets Conservative Groups

In conservative speak, conservation means sell to the highest bidder.

The OP proves what most progressive know: the attack on the IRS is just part of a bigger smear campaign the GOP has against all government agencies that prevent the rich from running roughshod over the rest of America. So they make stuff up. It's what conservatives do.

Speaking of making stuff up.:lol:

Your last two sentences do a fine job of it!!:2razz:
 
Re: Scandal 4: EPA Targets Conservative Groups

Missing the point? You brought up exceptions to the FOIA. Completely irrelevant. Certain types of documents are not covered by the FOIA and will not be given out on request. What happened here is not that.

Is there some other point I was supposed to glean from your one sentence post?

The playing field is the same as before. If conservative groups are unable to meet the criteria for a fee waiver, they don't get a fee waiver. The group that conducted the survey made a bunch of FOIA requests... for the purposes of conducting a public survey. They didn't have actual need or desire for the information, they weren't planning on making the data available to the public. They don't get a fee waiver for that.

The other groups? What information did they request, and what did they want it for?

It's not enough to say "this group was denied the waiver more than others." Why they were denied is important.
It does appear that the reason why these fees were not waived is because the groups requesting information were "conservative", and not related to the nine exceptions or the six criteria the EPA publishes. That would explain why these requests are now under investigation as well as the criteria employed by the EPA in evaluating these requests. Offering a policy statement proves nothing other than the existence of a policy. Discrimination, as we have found over the decades, is wholly dependent on the intent of those charged with implementing policies and following legislative guidelines. If that were not true, then Blacks in this country would have had all their rights a very long time ago. Women in the Obama administration would be receiving equal pay for equal work. Groups would not be identified and labeled by an agency such as the EPA. That kind of thing.
 
Re: Scandal 4: EPA Targets Conservative Groups

The EPA waives FOIA fees for groups that have a legitimate, identified purpose for gathering the information requested. One criteria is that it must show some sort of goal of improving public knowledge.

A group making these FOIA requests for the purpose of checking on the FOIA process at the EPA? Doesn't meet this criteria.

Conservative groups making redundant, overreaching, malicious FOIA requests for the purpose of slowing down actual work? Also doesn't meet this criteria.

the chances that you are actually privy to any facts is 0%.

Yet you are in this thread ruling out any chance of impropriety.

these facts are not yet transparent, but you sure are.
 
Re: Scandal 4: EPA Targets Conservative Groups

In conservative speak, conservation means sell to the highest bidder.

The OP proves what most progressive know: the attack on the IRS is just part of a bigger smear campaign the GOP has against all government agencies that prevent the rich from running roughshod over the rest of America. So they make stuff up. It's what conservatives do.

Yeah that is just even so far detached from reality that it surprises me that even you would say it. Avid hunters and fishermen are conservationist for the most part--they just think in terms of cleaning plastic bottles and tires out of streams and woods as opposed to parts per million of CO2.
 
Re: Scandal 4: EPA Targets Conservative Groups

The EPA waives FOIA fees for groups that have a legitimate, identified purpose for gathering the information requested. One criteria is that it must show some sort of goal of improving public knowledge.

A group making these FOIA requests for the purpose of checking on the FOIA process at the EPA? Doesn't meet this criteria.

Conservative groups making redundant, overreaching, malicious FOIA requests for the purpose of slowing down actual work? Also doesn't meet this criteria.

FOIA requests, like everything else, must be administered without bias. Bureaucrats don't get to make political judgements.

The idea that conservative FOIA requests are somehow oppressive or excessive has long been debunked.

Without lies and misrepresentations some people would have nothing to say.
 
Re: Scandal 4: EPA Targets Conservative Groups

It does appear that the reason why these fees were not waived is because the groups requesting information were "conservative", and not related to the nine exceptions or the six criteria the EPA publishes. That would explain why these requests are now under investigation as well as the criteria employed by the EPA in evaluating these requests. Offering a policy statement proves nothing other than the existence of a policy. Discrimination, as we have found over the decades, is wholly dependent on the intent of those charged with implementing policies and following legislative guidelines. If that were not true, then Blacks in this country would have had all their rights a very long time ago. Women in the Obama administration would be receiving equal pay for equal work. Groups would not be identified and labeled by an agency such as the EPA. That kind of thing.
Sigh. You still don't even know what happened here. Those nine criteria are NOT RELEVANT TO THIS CASE. Those are criteria for denying an FOIA case entirely. I'll put this in bold for you.

The FOIA requests from conservative groups were not denied.

Requests to waive the fee were denied.

And you have no evidence regarding the reason these denials occurred. It doesn't "appear" that way. You are perceiving it that way. It's interesting that you make these declarations despite not even knowing the basic facts of the situation.

the chances that you are actually privy to any facts is 0%.

Yet you are in this thread ruling out any chance of impropriety.

these facts are not yet transparent, but you sure are.

Precisely. I am privy to no facts. And neither are you. Or the guy quoted above, who UNLIKE ME, actually HAS "ruled out" a chance of innocence. I didn't rule out anything.
 
Re: Scandal 4: EPA Targets Conservative Groups

Sigh. You still don't even know what happened here. Those nine criteria are NOT RELEVANT TO THIS CASE. Those are criteria for denying an FOIA case entirely. I'll put this in bold for you.

The FOIA requests from conservative groups were not denied.

Requests to waive the fee were denied.

And you have no evidence regarding the reason these denials occurred. It doesn't "appear" that way. You are perceiving it that way. It's interesting that you make these declarations despite not even knowing the basic facts of the situation.



Precisely. I am privy to no facts. And neither are you. Or the guy quoted above, who UNLIKE ME, actually HAS "ruled out" a chance of innocence. I didn't rule out anything.


"The FOIA requests from conservative groups were not denied."

"I didn't rule anythign out"

you can't make this kind of idiocy up people.


Ps. You ruled out that the playing field has changed. How could you possibly know this?
 
Last edited:
Re: Scandal 4: EPA Targets Conservative Groups

"The FOIA requests from conservative groups were not denied."

"I didn't rule anythign out"

you can't make this kind of idiocy up people.


Ps. You ruled out that the playing field has changed. How could you possibly know this?

For ****'s sake go back and read the article in the OP.

In a letter to Acting EPA Administrator Bob Perciasepe on Friday, four Republicans accused the agency of routinely waiving fees

that show that 92 percent of all fee waivers

submit to Congress information on fee waivers

Like other parts of the federal government, the EPA sometimes charges fees for research hours and photocopying of documents requested by a FOIA.

The agency judges requests for waived fees based on six factors

And so on and so forth

I said the policy had remained the same. If interpretations have changed, or its enforcement has been unequal, feel free to present some actual evidence.
 
Last edited:
Re: Scandal 4: EPA Targets Conservative Groups

you just revealed how phony your sign on and supposed lean are.

1. Republican =/= conservative.
2. Libertarian =/= conservative.
3. Learn proper English, before trying to dis someone.
4. I don't understand how I could be a so-called "phony" when I have never even heard of an "environmental" conservative group. Even the few pointed out on here are questionable. And no, Republicans asking for information about the Climategate emails does not = an environmental group. If such groups exist as you claim, then I will admit my incompetence but that doesn't mean I am a phony. I bet YOU don't even support the GOP!
 
Re: Scandal 4: EPA Targets Conservative Groups

1. Republican =/= conservative.
2. Libertarian =/= conservative.
3. Learn proper English, before trying to dis someone.
4. I don't understand how I could be a so-called "phony" when I have never even heard of an "environmental" conservative group. Even the few pointed out on here are questionable. And no, Republicans asking for information about the Climategate emails does not = an environmental group. If such groups exist as you claim, then I will admit my incompetence but that doesn't mean I am a phony. I bet YOU don't even support the GOP!

moderate <> you

centrist <> you
 
Re: Scandal 4: EPA Targets Conservative Groups

Yeah that is just even so far detached from reality that it surprises me that even you would say it. Avid hunters and fishermen are conservationist for the most part--they just think in terms of cleaning plastic bottles and tires out of streams and woods as opposed to parts per million of CO2.

Yes, yes, this old yarn. We know what conservation means to conservatives -- lease it out to industry.
 
Back
Top Bottom