The top two leaders of House Republicans, Reps. John Boehner (Ohio) and Eric Cantor (Va.), have appealed directly to Americans as the first policy battle of Obama’s administration takes shape.

The week before Obama took office, Cantor held a hearing on Capitol Hill that featured four video questions from citizens about the economic stimulus. The hearing had a similar feel to the YouTube debates during the presidential primaries. Boehner, meanwhile, invited users to ask questions on Digg. Nearly 1,500 were submitted, and Boehner answered the top questions on CNN.

It’s not just lawmakers who have urged greater transparency for the stimulus. Just hours after the House Appropriations Committee released the initial draft of the bill, The Heritage Foundation teamed with Rob Neppell of Kithbridge and a coalition of taxpayer organizations to put the economic stimulus bill online in a searchable and linkable form that allows users to comment on specific language.

ReadTheStimulus.org gives citizens a voice in the process. During the debate over comprehensive immigration reform in May 2007, Neppell took a leaked version of the legislation and made is easy for citizens to read an offer feedback. In the past two years, no federal legislation has come close to generating the same kind of public reaction than what happened during the immigration debate.

Someday soon, perhaps, Congress itself will make it easier for the public to engage in legislative debates. Until then, it’s going to require the work of organizations like those Jeff wrote about last week to play a leading role.

Heritage is a nonprofit organization with strict limitations on political activity. As a nonpartisan research institution, we produce analysis on public policy issues, including the candidates’ tax proposals, but do not — and legally cannot — support or oppose a candidate for political office.

I thought it would be useful to share our approach this week responding to both McCain and Obama, particularly because we used the Internet and social media to tell our story. Our goal in each case was to set the record straight and clear up any confusion about the use of our name in their campaign materials.

Obama’s Ad

We first learned of the Obama campaign’s use of our name when people began asking why Heritage was supporting his tax proposal. We quickly discovered that Obama was airing a national TV ad that incorrectly cited Heritage. The quote used in Obama’s ad was attributed to a Heritage analyst, but was actually from a New York Sun reporter who had erroneously paraphrased the analyst’s views. Even though we corrected the record back in September (and even in a Wall Street Journal letter), it didn’t deter the Obama campaign.

Heritage’s attorney sent a letter to Obama asking him to pull the ad. We circulated it first to bloggers, getting excellent pickup and prompting posts on high-traffic blogs such as Instapundit, The Corner and RedState. Our next move was to record a short video with analyst Rea Hederman explaining the situation. When we still didn’t hear back from the campaign, Heritage’s attorney asked TV stations to discontinue the ad. We used this opportunity to ask our fans on Facebook and followers on Twitter to tell us if they’ve seen the ad in their area.

Although the campaign didn’t pull the ad, there was little doubt about where Heritage stood. And as an added bonus, all of the attention gave our analysts the perfect opportunity to talk about their research on the candidates’ plans.

McCain’s Statement

The McCain campaign released a statement Thursday citing figures from Heritage to attack Obama’s tax plan.

According to the independent Center for Data Analysis, Barack Obama’s new policies will destroy nearly 6 million jobs over the next decade.

There are two problems with this sentence. First, the Center for Data Analysis is not “independent.” It is part of The Heritage Foundation, just like the Center for Media and Public Policy, of which I’m director, and the Center for Health Policy Studies. Heritage’s mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies.

The second problem is the figure cited by the McCain campaign. Alerted to the campaign’s statement by CNN.com, Heritage’s Bill Beach explained how Heritage reached its conclusion, and why McCain was mistaken to use that number. Beach described it as a “rookie mistake” by the campaign.

Later that day CNN.com ran a “fact check” article with the explanation, concluding the McCain campaign had put out a “false” statement citing Heritage’s numbers.

Conclusion

Everyone makes mistakes, including presidential campaigns, but as both of these examples show, it’s incumbent upon institutions to protect their name and correct errors. The approach you take might be different, but in a world where information travels remarkably fast, there’s no time to waste. Using the Internet and social media can be an effective way to correct the record.