Last year, the Department of Education demanded $4,000 of SSDP's lunch money in return for public information regarding the drug provision of the Higher Education Act. SSDP has taken a stand against the federal government's bullying, and today, the New York Times took our back:
EditorialCongrats to SSDP's national staff on working with the New York Times to get this important issue covered. To help with SSDP's lawsuit, donate today and sign up for SSDP's action alerts.
The High Cost of Public Information
The Bush administration has made a habit of keeping public information from the very public that owns it. A good example can be found at the United States Department of Education. After dragging its feet for months, the agency has asked a tiny nonprofit group to pay a ruinous sum for information on the impact of a law that bars students who have committed drug offenses from receiving federal grants and loans.
The law, which cuts off former offenders from receiving financial help even when the crimes they committed were minor and long ago, has become a subject of intense debate. Congress recently approved changes that should moderate some of the law's most destructive effects. Students for Sensible Drug Policy, a small nonprofit group, asked the Department of Education to provide a simple state-by-state breakdown of the people who have been denied aid under the law so far. But the department demanded more than $4,000 for this information, an amount the group clearly could not afford. The government argued that the request was not in the public interest and implied that Students for Sensible Drug Policy had some commercial interest in seeking it. These claims are both implausible.
The fee represents an increasingly common tactic that is used by the government to discourage public inquiries. The student group has acquired pro bono representation and filed suit in federal court. Members of Congress could end the battle by requesting the information on the group's behalf. Beyond that, Congress should reinforce the Freedom of Information law — which was meant to prevent this kind of thing in the first place.
2 comments:
What are you basing your case on? Double jeopardy? That will NEVER work and only good for press coverage. In order to be considered double jeopardy you have to be trialed or sentenced twice in court. HEA drug repeal though an unfortunate conseqence does not fall in to this category at all. Get a clue!
The lawsuit mentioned in this post is based on the SSDP's eligibility to be granted a fee waiver under the Freedom of Information Act.
SSDP is working on another suit with the ACLU that will challenge the constitutionality of the Drug Provision itself, but that suit wasn't mentioned in this post.
Post a Comment