At first glance, transparency would seem to be an unqualified good in government, almost synonymous, in fact, with “good” government. Journalists have always loved transparency because it allows them to report all the seemingly boring stuff of government that can hide so many misdeeds.
But there’s another side of transparency in this brave new world of big, nanny-state government, where officeholders and bureaucrats rule by ideology and the quasi religion of progressivism. In a sane world, government has no business concerning itself with people’s ideas, beliefs, and political affiliations.
Nevertheless, the current federal administration and its political fellow travelers in public office nationwide have shown a disturbing tendency to use the power of government to punish enemies.
Already, we’ve had businessmen who oppose our president being subjected to IRS audits. And more recently we’ve had a fast-food restaurant chain owner threatened by the Democratic mayors of two large cities with unequal and unconstitutional treatment by government agencies. Corporate CEOs and donors to conservative groups and causes, have become targets of harassment from left-wing groups.
Following in these questionable footsteps, we now have North Carolina’s Democratic state treasurer seeking information that is none of her business from corporations in whose stock she has invested, or is considering investing, the taxpayers’ money:
State Treasurer Janet Cowell is pushing to require Nike Inc. and other large corporations to make their political contributions more transparent, a move that has drawn skepticism.
In addition to seeking political disclosure from Nike, Cowell, a Democrat, also has joined efforts to get further disclosure of political spending by Devon Energy and Halliburton. The state’s pension funds hold substantial investments in the three companies — roughly $50 million in Nike alone.
“In light of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, the treasurer believes that companies involved in political activities should disclose their political spending and board oversight policies to make sure these expenses are in the best interest of shareholders,” Julia Vail, a spokeswoman for Cowell, said in an email statement.
Given recent history, the public has good reason to be suspicious of Cowell’s interest in the political activities of corporations. The abuse of information gained in the name of transparency in the past three years by left-wing groups and Democratic officeholders hardly warrants us giving her the benefit of the doubt.
Though a state treasurer may, by some gossamer thread of logic, think of herself as a shareholder in a corporation, it is only in the hothouse of left liberalism now predominating among liberal officeholders that a state treasurer would presume to tell a corporation what’s in the best interest of its shareholders.
........As you post your comment, please conform to Right Angles's simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. If you wouldn't say it to a co-worker in front of your boss, it probably is not civil and respectful. We will delete any comment that fails this test and issue a warning to the poster. A second offense will result in a ban on commenting on this site. In sum, disagreements, arguments even, are welcome; abusive behavior is not. Thanks.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
30
2012 At 1:52 am, geek49203 Said:
I hate to say it, but at least it appears as though the Occupy Wall Street people had a good reason to gripe.
Had its movement not been taken over by this generation of liberal loonies, we might’ve had a conversation on how some government officials seem to be getting quite wealthy on investments once they get into office. (Then again, the protesters circa 1970 has some concerns about Viet Nam that turned out to be viable, but those too were lost in a haze of pot smoke and tear gas.)
The way to limit this, of course, is to limit the size and scope and power of government — but that is not in the financial best interest of those running either big government or big business.
30
2012 At 7:48 am, Jon Ham Said:
You are correct. Corruption and ethical lapses know no party, and entrenched politicians seem to be prone to both. The left, however, uses issues like corruption and transparency like the Soviets used peace, as an insincere means to a very dubious end.
31
2012 At 3:10 pm, Skyler the Weird Said:
The OWS is just the old ACTION to end the WAR Far Left group from the Bush years. Notice how the Anti War Demonstrations have disappeared and the OWS protests increased since Bush left. It’s the same left wing agitators with a New Name.