Category: government transparency

A Morning After

Eric O'Keefe, Gov. Scott Walker, John Doe, Wisconsin

Yesterday we celebrated the end to “a disgraceful episode in Wisconsin history” — the dawn police raids of the so-called John Doe investigations against conservatives alleged to have violated campaign finance regulations.

State and federal courts ruled that no laws were broken and some laws were unconstitutional — certainly Milwaukee County DA John Chisholm’s prosecutorial methods violated the rights of citizens the court called innocent.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, announced Monday, not to hear Chisholm’s appeal thankfully ends this particular reign of error and terror.

So what have we learned?

First, courage is contagious. Had Eric O’Keefe with the Wisconsin Club for Growth not bravely spoken out, others would have remained quiet, and the prosecutors might have gotten away with what National Review’s David French called “a pure intimidation tactic to try to terrify conservatives into silence.”

Another unmistakable conclusion: yes indeed, it can happen here.

It has.

Obviously.

And if changes are not made, it will happen again.

Reforms have already been won. Not only is the John Doe investigation shut down, the law was changed, allowing for no more John Doe attacks. The Government Accountability Board, found to have acted from partisan motives, has been completely disbanded and new ethics bodies formed.

Another avenue of correction comes through the courts. The MacIver Institute filed a class-action lawsuit against Milwaukee County DA John Chisholm and others for illegally seizing documents, and Cindy Archer, whose home was raided by police, has filed a civil rights lawsuit.

Ms. Archer’s suit was dismissed after a federal judge ruled that the prosecutors had immunity. But that dismissal is now on appeal before the federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The prosecutors will go to court … as defendants.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags Eric O'Keefe, Gov. Scott Walker, John Doe, Wisconsin

Accountability ballot access First Amendment rights general freedom government transparency initiative, referendum, and recall media and media people moral hazard nannyism Regulating Protest too much government U.S. Constitution

Four Measures for Rogue Government

Post author By CS Admin
Post date September 27, 2016
1 Comment on Four Measures for Rogue Government

speech, anti-speech, NAACP, Supreme Court, First Amendment, Free Speech,

Rule of thumb: don’t enact today laws that, had they been obeyed by folks in the original 13 states of our union, would have prevented independence.

Voters in Missouri, South Dakota, and Washington have the “opportunity” to enact such laws this November.

In “Beware of Anti-Speech Ballot Measures,” Tracy Sharp and Darcy Olsen, presidents of the State Policy Center and the Goldwater Institute, respectively, offer a warning. Focusing on Measure 22, the South Dakota Government Accountability and Anti-Corruption Act, they show how dangerous notions like forcing “nonprofit organizations to report the names and addresses of their donors to the state government” can be.

Such disclosure would subject non-profits “to possible investigation by an unelected ethics board that is given the power to subpoena private documents and overrule decisions made by the state attorney general.…” Rogue, star-chamber government.

Fever dream?

No. Sharp and Olsen highlight a famous U.S. Supreme Court case that protected the NAACP from the state’s demand for the group’s funding sources. Both women also offer personal tales of how nasty the opposition (in government and out) can become when big issues are on the line.

I can personally attest.

These measures fly in the face of what really matters — encouraging robust public debate. Democracy doesn’t work when people dread participation. As our authors challenge, “[d]o we want America to be a country where government keeps public lists of law-abiding citizens because they dare to support causes they believe in?”

Especially when, without the secret (unreported!) activities of the Committees of Correspondence, the USA would not have become united states in the first place.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Original (cc) photo by Michael Tracey on Flickr

Tags censorship, debate, free speech, intimidation, Supreme Court

Accountability government transparency national politics & policies responsibility too much government

One at a Time

A new procedural reform is in the offing.

And just because it is “procedural” doesn’t mean it’s insignificant.

Or boring.

Remember, how something gets done determines, in part, what gets done. The checks and balances that were written into our Constitution are there to regulate the how of government, the better to limit the what.

But it’s obvious our federal government is out of control, and in need of some additional … controls.

Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Mia Love have introduced just such legislation. It’s not a constitutional limitation, but a legislative change of procedure. The title of their bills pretty much explains the idea: the “One Subject at a Time Act,” initialized as OSTA.

I first heard rumblings about it from Rand Paul; then, just last week, Mia Love sent out her press release, ballyhooing the House version of OSTA, H.R. 4335.

Rand’s Senate version is S. 1572, and was introduced a little over a year ago.

The idea is not new. I’ve talked about it before. You probably have, too. Anyone with sense realizes that the congressional habit of adding unimportant, controversial programs to unrelated but necessary, uncontroversial bills, is a leading cause of government growth.

And one reason why Congress is so roundly detested.

OSTA, by forcing Congress to deal with subjects one bill at a time, might even save Congress from itself.

The bill is still looking for sponsors. You can help by putting your representative’s and senators’ feet to the fire.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags Congress, legislation, Mia Love, OSTA, Rand Paul, Sen. Rand Paul, Senate

Accountability government transparency ideological culture media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies political challengers porkbarrel politics responsibility Second Amendment rights too much government U.S. Constitution

The Clinton Chasm

Hillary Clinton, trust, lie, truthful, Ezra Klein, illustration, VOX

Hillary Clinton is roundly disliked by millions of outsiders, but admired by hundreds of politicians and activists. What sets her apart?

She listens.

Well, that’s Ezra Klein’s take in “Understanding Hillary,” an almost-believable piece of apologetics courtesy of Vox.

He calls Hillary’s problem “The Gap,” though “Vast Chasm” is more like it.

There’s a huge difference between how the public sees her — “Polls show most Americans doubt her basic honesty” — and how her fellow insiders feel about her. “She inspires a rare loyalty in ex-staff,” Klein informs us, “and an unusual protectiveness even among former foes.”

Klein emphasizes Mrs. Clinton’s capacity to talk naturally and listen carefully, when dealing one-on-one with insiders and constituents, and in small groups. “She gets things done,” he asserts, though I think what he really means is she moves her agenda forward. Actual accomplishments? Open to dispute.

On the crucial issue of trust, Klein buys into what Hillary is selling. She says people doubt her because she’s been so often attacked.

I don’t know about you, but I doubt her because … well, cattle futures, for starters. Her ridiculous “vast right-wing conspiracy” dodge to all those rich 1990s scandals: the blue dress, President Bill losing his law license, even the crony takeover of the White House travel office. Hillary has led the way more recently with the Benghazi “video” lie and her private server and email scandal. Plus, witness the ongoing conflict presented by the Clinton Foundation raking in millions from unsavory foreign sources..

Klein, on the other hand, argues that the media is against her.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Tags 2016 Presidential race, Ezra Klein, Hillary Clinton, Presidential campaign 2016, VOX

government transparency ideological culture meme national politics & policies too much government

Hannah Arendt

“No one has ever doubted that truth and politics are on rather bad terms with each other.”

—Hannah Arendt
(in her 1967 essay, “Truth and Politics.”)

Tags Hannah Arendt, illustration, meme, politics, truth

Accountability government transparency moral hazard responsibility

Opaque Pension System

government, pension, transparency, Nevada, illustration

Requiring government transparency is as necessary in those areas where governments can grant special favors as in those where governments can inflict direct harm.

That is, it’s as important regarding government worker pensions as it is of the abuse of police power.

In Nevada, the legal requirement for the state’s Public Employee Retirement System (PERS), to disclose who gets what in pension payments was recently thwarted by PERS itself.

“By replacing names with ‘non-disclosable’ social security numbers in its actuarial record-keeping documents, PERS has attempted to circumvent the 2013 ruling of the Nevada Supreme Court requiring disclosure,” explained Joseph Becker of the Nevada Policy Research Institute.

I’m quoting from NPRI’s July 6 press release. Most such publicity isn’t all that interesting, but this one catching government agencies deliberately working against their duties sparks a certain … interest. Wouldn’t you say?

Simply by altering how it keeps records, PERS officials hoped to stifle public … “spying.” It’s reasonable to prevent government from giving out public servants’ Social Security numbers, so PERS switched to listing information under those numbers, in so doing “violating both the letter and spirit of the Nevada Public Records Act,” explains Becker.

And thus undermining democracy — republican governance — itself.

This public disclosure wouldn’t be an issue if the pension system were run privately, based on defined contribution funding. But that’s not how governments do things.

We must hold government’s proverbial feet to the fire — of public information — to make sure government employees and taxpayers are both treated fairly.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF