Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a lawsuit against the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to obtain documents related to President Obama’s closed-door health care meetings with Vice President Biden, HHS Secretary Sebelius, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and union officials in violation of a campaign promise to broadcast all health care discussions on C-SPAN.

According to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, filed on March 17, 2010:

At an August 21, 2008 town hall meeting in Chester Virginia, presidential candidate Barack Obama promised the nation that, to achieve health care reform, “I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We’ll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies – they’ll get a seat at the table, they just won’t be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-Span, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.”

In a startling breach of his campaign promise, between January 1, 2010, and January 15, 2010, President Obama, Vice President Biden, Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius, and White House Office of Health Reform Director DeParle met behind closed doors with various groups to reach accord on health care reform before a final vote occurred in the U.S. House of Representatives. One group of individuals was senior officials of major unions. A second group consisted of Senate Majority Leader Reid and House Speaker Pelosi and other members of Congress.

Because President Obama and Secretary Sebelius held closed door negotiations at the White House, the public was denied the transparency President Obama had promised as a candidate.

In order to try to restore some minimal degree of transparency to the negotiations, Judicial Watch filed its original Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on January 15, 2010. HHS acknowledged receipt of Judicial Watch’s request on January 19, 2010. On January 21, 2010, and March 12, 2010, HHS indicated that two offices within the agency found no responsive requests. However, the Immediate Office of the Secretary and the Office of the Secretary Scheduling Office have thus far failed to respond. As Judicial Watch noted in its FOIA lawsuit, these are the two offices within HHS most likely to have custody of the requested records.

“First President Obama breaks his promise on making health care negotiations public and now his administration is stonewalling the release of records from his secret health care meetings. The President and liberals in Congress are on the verge of staging a government takeover of our health care system, and the American people, at this key moment, are completely in the dark. This lawsuit is designed to hold President Obama to his promises of transparency. It is shameful that the Obama administration would violate FOIA law to help ensure passage of Obamacare,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released the results of a new nationwide survey conducted in partnership with SurveyUSA concerning the American people's attitudes on a variety of subjects, including President Obama's job performance, political corruption, healthcare, transparency, ACORN, illegal immigration, and climate change. The poll was conducted by SurveyUSA December 11-14, 2009. Highlights include:

• A majority of likely voters (58%) believe decisions by the Obama administration are "Bad for America." (37% say these decisions have been "Good for America.")
• A majority of likely voters believe that government is too big (64%) and that bigger government leads to more corruption (62%). The vast majority of likely voters (72%) believe political corruption played a "major role" in the financial crisis. (President Obama recently suggested "fat cat bankers" were the chief cause of the crisis.)
• A majority of likely voters (56%) say the government is operating in a manner "Out Of Line" with the U.S. Constitution. And a majority think shrinking the size of government by 25% would be good for America.
• A majority of likely voters (59%) disapprove of the way the Obama administration is handling illegal immigration. An even greater majority (69%) disapprove of the way Congress is handling illegal immigration.
• The vast majority (77%) of likely voters are opposed to local governments providing sanctuary to illegal aliens, and a majority (61%) want local law enforcement to be more involved in enforcing immigration laws. And a majority (59%) oppose local governments using tax dollars to support sites for day laborers who are seeking work.
• Among likely voters, 56% have a negative view of ACORN, only 8% have a favorable opinion, giving ACORN a net favorability rating of minus 48.
• More likely voters believe global warming scientific data is "mostly falsified" (49%) than believe this data to be "mostly genuine" (41%).

"On virtually every single issue polled the Obama administration appears to be completely out of step with the prevailing views of the American people. It ought to be an especially troubling sign for President Obama that the majority of likely voters believe his decisions have been bad for the country. Frankly, these poll results suggest that President Obama and many other politicians ought to rethink their approach to government," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Overall, SurveyUSA interviewed 1,450 adults nationwide. 1,264 respondents identified themselves as being registered voters. Of the registered voters, 1,020 identified themselves as likely to vote in the 2010 elections for United States Congress. The margin of error for the Judicial Watch-SurveyUSA poll ranged from 2.6% to 3.1%, depending upon the question asked. The following are the complete results from Judicial Watch/SurveyUSA national poll. Results with crosstabs are also available.

Judicial Watch-SurveyUSA National Poll Results

OBAMA DECISIONS

1. As a whole, are the decisions being made by the Obama administration good for America? Or bad for America?

37% Good For America

58% Bad For America

6% Not Sure

POLITICAL CORRUPTION

2. How serious of a problem is political corruption in the federal government? Very serious? Somewhat serious? Not very serious? Or not serious at all?

65% Very

24% Somewhat

8% Not Very

2% Not Serious

1% Not Sure

3. Which political party does more to fight political corruption? (First two choices are rotated.) Republicans? Democrats? Or is there no difference?

25% Republicans

21% Democrats

54% No Difference

THE FINANCIAL CRISIS

4. How much of a role did political corruption have in the financial crisis? A major role? A minor role? Or no role at all?

72% Major Role

18% Minor Role

7% No Role At All

2% Not Sure

5. Has the federal government's use of tax dollars in the financial crisis – for instance, the TARP program – been good for America? Bad for America? Or has it made no difference either way?

25% Good For America

50% Bad For America

17% Made No Difference

7% Not Sure

SIZE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

6. Is the federal government too large? Too small? Or about the right size?

64% Too Large

6% Too Small

25% About The Right Size

6% Not Sure

7. If the size of the federal government were shrunk by 25%, would that be good for America? Bad for America? Or would it make no difference?

58% Good For America

19% Bad For America

17% Make No Difference

5% Not Sure

8. If the size of the federal government were increased by 25%, would that be good for America? Bad for America? Or would it make no difference?

12% Good For America

71% Bad For America

13% Make No Difference

4% Not Sure

9. Would a larger federal government have more corruption than a smaller one? Less corruption than a smaller one? Or would there be no difference?

62% More Corruption

5% Less Corruption

30% No Difference

3% Not Sure

10. Is the federal government operating in a way that mostly is in-line with the US Constitution? Or mostly out of line with the Constitution?

35% In-line

56% Out Of Line

8% Not Sure

SECRECY

11. Is the Obama administration making too much information available to the public? Not enough information? Or about the right amount of information?

8% Too Much

56% Not Enough

31% Right Amount

4% Not Sure

HEALTHCARE

12. Would an increased government role in the health care system lead to more corruption? Less corruption? Or will it make no difference?

62% More Corruption

14% Less Corruption

21% No Difference

4% Not Sure

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

13. Do you approve? Or disapprove? Of the way the Obama administration is handling illegal immigration?

22% Approve

59% Disapprove

19% Not Sure

14. Do you approve? Or disapprove? Of the way Congress is handling illegal immigration?

10% Approve

69% Disapprove

21% Not Sure

15. Do you think local law enforcement officers should be more involved in enforcing federal immigration laws? Less involved? Or should they have the same role now?

61% More Involved

12% Less Involved

22% Same Role As Now

5% Not Sure

16. Do you think local governments should? Or should not? Provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants?

12% Should

77% Should Not

11% Not Sure

17. Do you think local governments should? Or should not? Use tax dollars to support sites for day laborers who are seeking work?

23% Should

59% Should Not

18% Not Sure

ACORN

18. Is your opinion of the organization ACORN…favorable? Unfavorable? Neutral? Or, do you have no opinion of ACORN?

8% Favorable

56% Unfavorable

17% Neutral

20% No Opinion

JUDICIAL WATCH

19. Is your opinion of the organization Judicial Watch…favorable? Unfavorable? Neutral? Or, do you have no opinion of Judicial Watch?

16% Favorable

12% Unfavorable

23% Neutral

49% No Opinion

CLIMATE CHANGE

20. Do you think scientific data suggesting global warming is the result of human activity is mostly genuine? Or mostly falsified?

41% Mostly Genuine

49% Mostly Falsified

10% Not Sure

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement today in response to the decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to grant a civilian criminal trial to 9/11 terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and other 9/11 terrorists in New York City:

The decision to bring Mohammed and other Al Qaeda terrorists to New York for a civilian criminal trial is not Eric Holder's to make. President Obama is the commander in chief and he is ultimately responsible for the safety and security of this county.

President Obama already reversed Holder on the release of prisoner abuse photos on national security grounds and he should reverse Holder now in the interest of national security. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should remain in military custody, be kept outside the United States and be brought to justice in the military tribunal system.

An unprecedented civilian trial for the 9/11 terrorists will harm our national security, place government officials and civilians at risk, and provide a propaganda platform to rally and recruit terrorists. And it is no small risk that civilian criminal proceeding may result in the release of these terrorists onto American soil. No one elected Eric Holder to make these types of national security decisions. Eric Holder is making a dangerous mistake, and the President needs to act to protect the country and overrule the Attorney General.

Judicial Watch is representing a 9/11 victim in various litigation. And with respect to the military tribunal process, in 2008, Judicial Watch was selected by the Pentagon to monitor the arraignments at Guantanamo Bay of the five terrorist prisoners who are now set to be brought to New York.

In August, Judicial Watch obtained a CIA report entitled, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad: Preeminent Source on Al Qa'ida, which documented the information gained by interrogations of Mohammed: "KSM's decade-long career as a terrorist, during which he met with a broad range of Islamic extremists from around the world, has made him a key source of information on numerous al Qa'ida operatives and other mujahidin. He has provided intelligence that has led directly to the capture of operatives or fleshed out our understanding of the activities of important detainees, which in turn assisted in the debriefings of these individuals." This document was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement today in response to allegations reported by The Washington Times that during the first nine months of his administration "President Obama has quietly rewarded scores of top Democratic donors with VIP access to the White House, private briefings with administration advisers and invitations to important speeches and town-hall meetings."

"This new Obama scandal is disappointingly reminiscent of the Clintons' scheme to rent out the Lincoln Bedroom to top Democratic donors in the 1990s. In this case, however, it appears the entire White House complex is for sale in the Obama administration. A number of federal laws could have been broken by this White House fundraising program. Attorney General Holder can demonstrate his independence by appointing a special counsel to conduct an independent investigation of these serious allegations. In the meantime, the Obama White House needs to respond to our and others' requests for information about White House visitors."

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to obtain records related to federal grants provided to the controversial "community organization" Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN).

Judicial Watch filed its original Freedom of Information Act request on July 17. HUD acknowledged receipt of the request by letter on August 4th and granted itself additional time to process the request. However, HUD has not abided by its own extended deadline and has failed to provide Judicial Watch with a specific date by which it would respond, even after Judicial Watch agreed to limit the scope of the request to just seven states. (These states are California, Texas, Washington, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, and Louisiana.) By law, HUD had 20 days to respond to Judicial Watch's request. Judicial Watch filed its lawsuit on September 23, 2009.

Judicial Watch seeks the following records:

1. Any and all documents concerning money given to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and/or any of its affiliates (since January, 2000).
2. Any and all documents concerning any actions and/or disbarments against ACORN, for reasons including but not limited to abuse of grant money, misconduct, etc. (since January, 2000).

Over the last two weeks, the U.S. Senate has voted to deny ACORN access to housing funds, while the House of Representatives voted to deny ACORN all federal funds. The U.S. Census Bureau, meanwhile, has severed its partnership with the organization for the 2010 U.S. Census. The IRS also just severed a program relationship with ACORN. These actions were taken after videos surfaced depicting ACORN workers attempting to advise undercover reporters on how to evade tax, immigration and child prostitution laws. Most relevant to the lawsuit against HUD, are the videos depicting ACORN workers providing advice on purchasing a house to run as a brothel for underage, illegal alien girls.

"The Obama administration needs to come clean to the American people about its relationship with this disgraced organization, especially in light of President Obama's personal connections to ACORN," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Given ACORN's scandalous record, the federal government has no business supporting the organization with taxpayer dollars. It is troubling, given President Obama's promises of transparency, we have had to sue to try to gain access to the ACORN documents."