Lost in the examination of political candidates for high office – perhaps understandably – are clues to their freedom of information record or philosophy. How they stand on access to government information takes second or third fiddle at best to concerns about Iraq, Social Security, about how to lessen the rancor and divisiveness in the nation, and so on.

Besides, everyone is for access to information, right along with being partial to Mom and apple pie. (And, after all, isn’t it understood that the operational definition of “being for freedom of information” means releasing information that makes one look good and hiding information that makes one look bad?)

So, why bother?

One reason to press candidates for their FOI stands is to remind them of promises made and behavior expected should they win a nomination and election. Another reason is to begin rowing back from increasing secrecy at all levels of government. A third reason is that access to information is really something a candidate can take care of on his or her own – generally, if a public official chooses to provide information, the official doesn’t have to convince anyone else of the appropriateness or the need to be open and accessible.

But the questions are not asked. So, for example, few people know that Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico generally gets good grades on FOI concerns.

How about former Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, the first Democratic candidate to enter the race for his party’s 2008 nomination? His eight years of executive leadership in the state merit a grade of C or C+ at best, mostly because he did no significant damage to the state open meetings and open records laws. He sponsored no initiatives to make the laws stronger. When push came to shove, the first reaction of his staff was to opt for secrecy. In a January 15, 2006, article, “So what does the state have to hide?,” Des Moines Register reporter Lee Rood chronicled the FOI mood of the Vilsack administration. Her article and the Clark Kauffman one cited below are available from the Register archives. (Once in the archives, search for Vilsack + public records + reporter’s name.)

The Iowa Freedom of Information Council drafted a White Paper designed to acquaint reporters and citizens with FOI issues in the 2006 election. With regard to Vilsack, the report noted in part:

• In 2000, Gov. Tom Vilsack’s legal counsel refused to release a draft report on the state’s handling of child-abuse cases. In 2003, the governor’s office refused to respond to requests for office e-mails.
• Governor’s records that were originally open to the public for free were later hidden by a claim of “attorney-client privilege” and people who wanted to view them had to pay $15 an hour to have the materials screened first. The charges were instituted after the Des Moines Register wrote an unflattering story about the governor, based on the records.
• In a continuing Central Iowa scandal, over misuse of funds for retraining the unemployed, the governor’s staff at first refused to release a written report on the involvement of state employees in the scandal. Officials cited an exemption to the Iowa open records law that allows government officials to keep secret “personal information” in workers’ personnel files. To his credit, Vilsack corrected the error the next day and ordered the information released. (This episode is reported by Register reporter Clark Kauffman in a June 1, 2006, article, “Vilsack: Public can’t see CIETC report”)

Still, reporters and editors in the state report government antagonism toward openness and access that Vilsack did little to alleviate – despite whatever accomplishments he lists in the way of support of education, improving the state’s economy, etc.

Maybe his record is still better than other candidates’. We don’t know. The question isn’t asked.