Reform, good and bad

Two interesting bits of reform percolated yesterday -- one for the better, the other not so much. But good news first:
One thing we will learn from the logs: who the people came into the White House to see, where the meeting took place, and how long the visit lasted—and that’s a very big deal. This policy change is in response to a spate of lawsuits dating back to the Bush years, when then-Vice President Dick Cheney and his staffers hosted dozens of oil-industry lobbyists as they sought input on energy policy. In recent months, reporters have been pressing the Obama White House on who it's been talking to on health-care reform—particularly in light of word that top Obama aides negotiated with pharmaceutical-industry representatives on a potential policy fix.

Really, good on him for doing this -- transparency is crucial.

This next one might be a little to the good as well, but not as much as I'd have liked -- card check might be off the table, but the unions still don't love democracy:
In an interview, John J. Sweeney, the [A.F.L. - C.I.O.] federation’s president, said he would accept a fast election campaign instead of card check because it would meet his goal of minimizing management interference during organizing drives.
Randel Johnson, senior vice president for labor, immigration and employee benefits at the United States Chamber of Commerce, nonetheless criticized the proposal for elections after a short campaign.

“That has the effect as a practical matter of eliminating the ability of the employer to educate its employees about the potential adverse effects of unionization,” Mr. Johnson said. “It still begs the question, what is wrong with the existing secret ballot process?”
(emphasis added)

Well, it doesn't beg the question, but otherwise Johnson hits the nail on the head. Card check or no, the system shouldn't be changed.