PragerU Video: When Transparency Really Means Tyranny
National Review's David French explains in PragerU's latest video that government transparency is beneficial to society — with the exception of national security matters — since "the public has a right to know what the government is doing with your tax dollars." However, the public does not have the right to know the details of your private life, including the organizations you choose to donate to.
For instance, French cites the example of The Los Angeles Times revealing all the donations made by figures like Scott Eckern, a theater director who donated to causes supporting traditional marriage, resulting in numerous people facing boycotts and losing their jobs, including Eckern.
Left-wing states are attempting to use the force of law to make such information public: New York now has a law requiring nonprofits to disclose their donors every time they take a stance against a politician. When Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) was the attorney general of California, she forced nonprofits to reveal their donors to the state; that information was then posted online for the public to see.
"Even if the government kept that information secret, it’s none of its business," says French. "Because while transparency is a government obligation, privacy is an individual right. How do we know? Because of the First Amendment."
French goes on to point out that the Supreme Court ruled in the 1950's that Alabama didn't have the right to require the NAACP to reveal their donor lists because "the First Amendment protected their right of freedom of association, and that included protection from prying eyes." Those who wanted the NAACP to reveal their donor lists at the time tried to justify it by stating that it was necessary to fight against "dark money" — the same line of reasoning the Left uses today in favor of this kind of forced "transparency."
National Review's David French explains in PragerU's latest video that government transparency is beneficial to society — with the exception of national security matters — since "the public has a right to know what the government is doing with your tax dollars." However, the public does not have the right to know the details of your private life, including the organizations you choose to donate to.
For instance, French cites the example of The Los Angeles Times revealing all the donations made by figures like Scott Eckern, a theater director who donated to causes supporting traditional marriage, resulting in numerous people facing boycotts and losing their jobs, including Eckern.
Left-wing states are attempting to use the force of law to make such information public: New York now has a law requiring nonprofits to disclose their donors every time they take a stance against a politician. When Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) was the attorney general of California, she forced nonprofits to reveal their donors to the state; that information was then posted online for the public to see.
"Even if the government kept that information secret, it’s none of its business," says French. "Because while transparency is a government obligation, privacy is an individual right. How do we know? Because of the First Amendment."
French goes on to point out that the Supreme Court ruled in the 1950's that Alabama didn't have the right to require the NAACP to reveal their donor lists because "the First Amendment protected their right of freedom of association, and that included protection from prying eyes." Those who wanted the NAACP to reveal their donor lists at the time tried to justify it by stating that it was necessary to fight against "dark money" — the same line of reasoning the Left uses today in favor of this kind of forced "transparency."