Checks and Balances

If there is one message that the small group of Washington, D.C. interns can carry with them after leaving the “How to Fight Corruption in Washington” seminar at Judicial Watch, it is that “no one is above the law!”

The adamant slogan of the conservative, non-partisan educational foundation for government accountability was the central theme of the July 20 event exclusively for interns, which featured Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, Director of Litigation Paul Orfanedes and Director of Investigations and Research Chris Farrell.

This educational program highlighted “the value of independent watchdog groups in the pursuit of transparency and accountability in government and the judiciary,” offering tips and advice for future professionals in Washington. Fitton, Orfanedes and Farrell all cited the useful and often-overlooked Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as a tool in obtaining governmental records that have not been released to the public.

Though this act enables citizens to gain “access to government decision-making in a timely manner,” actually attaining the information can often be a challenge, according to Fitton. “The government is like one big mass trying to push against you, and it’s hard to move it,” he says.

Despite the hurdles and obstacles along the way to uncovering the truth, Fitton maintains that it is imperative to “hold the government accountable for its actions and explain what is going on” within its inner workings, akin to “letting the sun shine in.” Doing so, however, can be an agonizing process, says Fitton. Judicial Watch has frequently resorted to pursuing claims in court, which is allowed under FOIA when the government does not supply information in a timely or sufficient manner. “What excites people about Judicial Watch is that we are active in court,” Fitton says.

The anti-corruption group was founded in 1994 during the Clinton administration with “the mission to promote and restore ethics and morality in the United States government and legal systems.” Director of Litigation Orfanedes says that what sets Judicial Watch apart from other organizations is their active, hands-on approach. “We try to effect change throughout the legal process,” he says.

Citing the 2000 Bush-Gore election controversy as an example of their proactive mantra, Director of Investigations and Research Farrell claims that Judicial Watch sparked the “Florida recount” ordeal. After President Bush’s narrow victory over Democratic candidate Al Gore, they asked for every ballot in every county in Florida and hired an accounting firm to go through them all. Though the result of the election was the same in the end, Farrell says that he and his colleagues came to a definitive conclusion: “dimples” (indentations on the ballot that fail to fully puncture the paper) do not exist. “We tried to make dimples using a voting machine, as an experiment, and it’s just not possible. You can’t do it,” he says.

Conservative in their mindset, the employees at Judicial Watch believe that “big government” inevitably leads to “big corruption.” “We want to disinfect what is currently happening in the government,” Fitton says. “There’s lots of money being spent, especially in Iraq, which means that there is lots of potential for corruption.”

Though there are government agencies in place whose objective it is to oversee government officials and hold them accountable, “we can rely only in part on [them] to ferret out corruption,” according to Fitton. “Elected officials need to be on watch” despite the politicization involved when they commit crimes, he says.

If Fitton could have a thesis to his talk, it would surely be that action is necessary to keep the government in order and that “even as a private group you can have an impact. We’re just trying to encourage people to look objectively at corruption.”

Katherine Duncan is an intern at Accuracy in Media, Accuracy in Academia’s parent group.