Here are some quick takeaways: Registered voters consider corruption to be a major problem, support illegal alien law enforcement, and believe President Obama has failed to keep his campaign promise to make government more transparent to the American people. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, meanwhile, has significant national Republican support, nearly doubling the total of his closest rival, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Registered voters are evenly split on whether the Supreme Court should uphold Obamacare.

The Judicial Watch survey was conducted by Harris Interactive January 12-15, 2012. (Full survey results, including crosstabs, are available here.) The following are the highlights:

• REPUBLICAN NOMINATION: Republican and Republican leaning registered voters favor Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (32%) over the rest of the Republican field by double digits. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich finishes second (17%). Ron Paul earns 14% support, with Rick Santorum garnering 10%.

• GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION: The vast majority of registered voters (88%) believe corruption is a significant problem in Washington. More registered voters (45%) believe one of the Republican candidates would be more effective than Obama (34%) in addressing political corruption, with Ron Paul seen as the Republican best able to combat government corruption.When asked generally which party was trusted more to combat government corruption, Republicans fared poorly in the poll. Only 30% thought Republicans could be trusted more versus 37% trusting Democrats more. A large number (33%) said neither/not sure.

• TRANSPARENCY: The vast majority of registered voters (69%) believe President Obama has either worsened (27%) or not improved (42%) government transparency as he promised during the 2008 presidential campaign. Only slightly more than half of registered Democrats believe Obama has improved transparency.

• ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: The majority of registered voters (53%) want more emphasis on law enforcement when addressing illegal immigration while only a small percentage (9%) want less. Meanwhile, three out of four registered voters (74%), including a majority of Hispanics (57%), believe local law enforcement officers should help enforce illegal immigration laws. A majority of registered voters (64%) disagree with illegal alien sanctuary policies, including a slight majority of Hispanics (51%). Poll respondents are evenly split on the President’s illegal immigration policies, with 42% disagreeing and 40% agreeing with the administration’s approach. (56% of Hispanic’s support the President’s policies).

• OBAMACARE: Registered voters are nearly evenly split on whether or not Obamacare is constitutional and should be upheld by the Supreme Court. 44% think the law is constitutional and 43% think the law is unconstitutional, though self-identified independent voters think the law is unconstitutional by a margin of 47%-40%. In response to a question about the ongoing debate about whether Justice Elena Kagan should participate in the Supreme Court’s review of Obamacare, 37% (including one in four Democrats) oppose her participation and 34% support her participation. A significant number (28%) don’t know whether she should participate.

• CONGRESSIONAL INSIDER TRADING: The vast majority of Americans (86%) believe insider trading laws should be enforced against members of Congress.

Let the results of this poll be a lesson for all politicians. Voters want to clean up corruption in Washington. The survey also represents a clear warning for Barack Obama who has fallen short on his campaign promise to make government more open and transparent in the minds of the majority of voters.

And Republicans should be worried that few Americans trust them to combat government corruption. While the public is evenly split on key issues such as Obamacare, they remain unified in support for more and better law enforcement in the area of illegal immigration.

I would expect in the coming months that both parties, recognizing the importance of corruption as a political issue, will pay lip service to the crisis. But what matters is what happens after the elections are over. Unfortunately, there is a mile wide gap between campaign rhetoric on corruption and the on-the-ground reality inside the halls of Congress and the White House.

I thought it interesting that the first official commercial of the Obama campaign highlights the President’s supposed ethics record. Without getting into a debate about the accuracy of the ad, this shows that at least the Obama campaign has the instinct to highlight the issue of government corruption as important to the American people.

(A note on the survey’s methodology: This study was conducted January 12-15, 2012, by Harris Interactive via telephone landline and cell phone on behalf of Judicial Watch. The survey was conducted among a nationwide cross-section of 871 Registered Voters; 686 interviews were from the landline sample and 185 interviews from the cell phone sample. The sampling error is +/-3.5 percent.)

Cross-Posted: TobyToons.com (Conservative Political Cartoons)

Judicial Watch recently released documents detailing the Obama White House decision to close to reporters a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) training workshop conducted by the Office of Information Policy (OIP) in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). JW obtained the documents from the OIP in response to a FOIA request filed on the same day the workshop was held.

The documents consist of a series of emails between White House staff and the Director of the OIP. And here are a few key excerpts from these emails demonstrating what disrespect this White House has for transparency:

• “I am going to touch base with my public affairs office re your suggestion to get their reaction. I, personally don’t object as my message is the same whether the event is open or not. Our concern had been solely with the inhibiting effect it would have on the gov’t ’ees [employees] who might not speak freely if press are there.” — Melanie Pustay, OIP Director, to Blake Roberts, Deputy Associate White House counsel, December 6, 2009.
• “Ok – please don’t have them reach out to any reporters before I clear w/ wh [White House] press.” — Blake Roberts to Melanie Pustay, December 6, 2009.
• “After talking with… ben labolt [then-Assistant White House Press Secretary], the decision is that the training will be closed to the press.” — Gina Talamona, Press Release Deputy Director for the DOJ to Melanie Pustay and Brian Hauck, Counsel to the Associate Attorney General, December 7, 2009.
• “I think you have the right to give closed training when you want it.” — Brian Hauck to Melanie Pustay and Gina Talamona.

The documents also include a statement by OIP Director Melanie Pustay regarding previous FOIA workshops: “So far I have always held parallel sessions, one for agency ‘ees [employees] and then one that is open.”

Now that’s interesting: A different workshop for “public view” than the one the employees are getting behind closed doors.

Regarding the FOIA training conference held on December 7, 2009, it was jointly hosted by the OIP and the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) as a private workshop ostensibly to provide tips to FOIA public liaison staff members on communicating, negotiating, and resolving disputes with individuals and organizations submitting FOIA requests. But what was actually said and done in this private workshop we may never know. That’s why there was so much criticism heaped upon the Obama administration when the transparency workshop was closed to the public.

This decision flew in the face of Obama’s own words. On his first full day in office Barack Obama promised to “usher in a new era of open government” and directed agencies to administer the FOIA “with a clear presumption: in the face of doubt, openness prevails.” President Obama further instructed agencies that information should not be withheld merely because “public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.”

So much for that.

Now, it is unlikely you’ve ever heard of the Justice Department’s Office of Information Policy. I sure wouldn’t have known about it if I didn’t work at Judicial Watch. But you should know that this office at DOJ provides policy guidance and oversight for the entire federal government on freedom of information. Specifically, according to its own website the OIP is responsible “for ensuring that the President’s FOIA Memorandum and the Attorney General’s FOIA Guidelines are fully implemented across the government.”

The fact that the lead federal office on transparency keept secret a transparency workshop is beyond ironic. There is a scandalously wide gap between Barack Obama’s rhetoric on transparency and the secretive policies of his administration. These documents suggest that it is the Obama White House itself that is directly responsible for this unprecedented lack of transparency.

It was supposed to be a scandal beyond all scandals when the Bush White House expressed opinions on the hiring and firing of U.S. Attorneys appointed by the President. This so-called politicization of the DOJ was supposed to end with the installation of Attorney General Eric Holder. Well, Judicial Watch understood that it would actually get worse because Holder is a notorious political hack.

Sure enough, we caught the White House ordering around the DOJ on this important policy issue. For what other issues does the DOJ seek the opinion of the White House? Black Panthers? Fast and Furious? Suing states that want to protect their citizens from illegal immigration? Corruption investigations involving the Obama machine?

This scandal will reach much further than broken transparency promises.

A proposed rule to the Freedom of Information Act would allow federal agencies to tell people requesting certain law-enforcement or national security documents that records don’t exist – even when they do.

Under current FOIA practice, the government may withhold information and issue what’s known as a Glomar denial that says it can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records.

The new proposal – part of a lengthy rule revision by the Department of Justice – would direct government agencies to “respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist.”

Open-government groups object.

We don’t believe the statute allows the government to lie to FOIA requesters,” said Mike German, senior policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the provision.

The ACLU, along with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and OpenTheGovernment.org said the move would “dramatically undermine government integrity by allowing a law designed to provide public access to government to be twisted.

Read the whole thing here.

• Salaries over $150K
• Benefits for people with salaries over $150K
• Overtime paid to retiring personnel 2008-2011
• Number of department-issued cell phones from January 1, 2008 to January 1, 2011
• Number of department-issued personal cars for take-home use

Can the police detain you for taking pictures of a routine traffic stop? Police in Washington D.C. say they can.

In 2010, photographer and student Jerome Vorus was detained and questioned by police after he photographed a traffic stop in Georgetown. The ACLU says he was illegally detained and has filed a lawsuit on his behalf. Vorus recently sat down with Reason.tv’s Nick Gillespie to discuss what happened that day and where his case currently stands.

With cameras and other recording devices becoming more affordable, cases like Vorus’ have become all too common. For more information on this disturbing trend, read Reason magazine’s January 2011 cover story “The War on Cameras” with the companion piece “How to Record the Cops” and watch Reason.tv’s documentary “The Government’s War on Cameras!”

Shot by Jim Epstein and Joshua Swain. Edited by Swain. About 4.18 minutes.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable iPod, HD and audio versions of this and all our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube Channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.