Elections are the time when politicians pay the most attention to people and issues, and therefore the best time to ask them questions about how they plan to govern. OMB Watch wants your help in figuring out the best questions on government transparency that can be put to the candidates. Take just a few minutes to answer our survey and vote on your five favorite questions on the issue of government transparency and openness. We will then share the top questions with the news media and other organizations that have direct contact with candidates.

Government openness affects every issue from budget and taxes, to the regulatory process, to non-profit advocacy. The range of questions tries to reflect this breadth so check them and see which are most important to you.

Take the Open Government: What We Need To Know Survey today.

As Reg•Watch mentioned last week, in 2007, new regulatory policies and the inability of federal agencies to protect the public made headlines more so than at any time in recent memory. Newspapers continually ran stories on White House interference, unsafe imports, and new hazards being ignored by government despite scientific evidence imploring regulation.

In 2007, Americans became trenchantly aware of the positive role government can play and the consequences that can be wrought when regulatory protections break down. But 2007 may have only been the beginning of a new chapter in American domestic policy. Many problems have been identified, but few have been solved. Dangerous imports, workplace hazards and environmental degradation may dominate headlines to an even greater extent in 2008.

But will mounting evidence be enough to tip the scales in favor of regulation in the face of the Bush administration's obstructionist policies? Federal agencies like EPA and OSHA may continue to drag their feet on issues such as diacetyl exposure (which threatens workers and consumers exposed to the artificial butter flavoring in microwave popcorn) and greenhouse gas emissions, and the White House will likely continue to meddle with agency regulations and may find new ways to enact even more damaging systemic changes.

Will a Democratically controlled Congress be able to move with the force necessary to pass new laws that respond to public needs? Despite the increased attention given to resource shortfalls at agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission and FDA, Congress has been unable to approve appropriations bills that would make funding and staffing at those agencies commensurate with regulatory responsibility. Legislative measures, like those to improve import safety or reform our nation's energy policy, are constructive but have gained little traction in a Congress seemingly without a sense of national priorities — a Congress which prefers partisan bickering to positive governing.

Most importantly, will the public continue to look to government to play a positive role in society? If regulatory failures do indeed continue through 2008 and beyond, will the public succeed in imploring government intervention where circumstance has not? If our leaders continue to disregard science, govern on the cheap, and make politics a higher priority than policy, the public must hold those leaders accountable and demand change.

Today, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), in her role as chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, held a field hearing in Los Angeles on EPA's recent decision to block state action on greenhouse gas emissions. At least 17 states are seeking to adopt vehicle emission regulations to reduce emissions.

California's attorney general, Gerry Brown, spoke at the hearing. Brown exhaustively rebuts the arguments EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson gave in denying the state's request. In one part of his written testimony, Brown counters the ridiculous notion (like Reg•Watch does here) that allowing states to regulate greenhouse gases would create multiple regulatory schemes with which automakers would have to comply:

Echoing the automobile industry's Washington, D.C. lobbyists, Administrator Johnson's letter claims that allowing California's regulation would lead to a "confusing patchwork of state rules." In fact, there is no "patchwork." Congress long ago gave other states only two choices: to stick with federal standards or adopt California's standards "identically."

Brown also questions whether Johnson is solely responsible for the decision:

Aside from requiring Mr. Johnson and EPA to provide sworn testimony and to produce all relevant documents, I urge you to question him about his contacts with the White House staff and his meetings with automobile industry executives and the White House. We have probably all seen the press accounts describing the auto executives direct appeal to Vice President Cheney. EPA staffers told the LA Times that Johnson "made his decision" only after Cheney met with the executives. On multiple occasions in October and November, Cheney and White House staff members are said to have met with industry executives, including the CEOs of Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler. We have a right to know what happened at those meetings, who was there, and what was said. Was Administrator Johnson acting on the Administration's directives when he denied California's waiver request?

Brown may just get answers to his closing quiestion. EPA's general counsel has instructed agency staff to turn over all documents surrounding Johnson's decision, including communications with the White House.

In 2007, new regulatory policies and the inability of federal agencies to protect the public made headlines more so than at any time in recent memory. Four themes dominated regulatory policy in 2007: White House influence over agency rulemaking activity and discretion; the inability of the federal government to ensure the safety of imported goods; the influence of industry groups; and the Bush administration's refusal to regulate in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

Click on these links for a recap of 2007's highlights and lowlights:

• White House Interventions
• Import Safety
• Industry Influence
• Ignoring Science