The political Holy Grail...

[Larry Gude]

...here it is; the driest, most boring thing on the face of the planet which also happens to be the single greatest threat to government of the people, by the people and for the people; lobbying groups privacy in regards to who funds them.

Wash Post business (appropriately enough) section: by Jeffrey Birnbaum

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12183-2005Mar6.html

The lobbyists say their donors prefer privacy which is another way of saying they fear standing up for what they believe in. Others say they have a right to free (and secret) speech. Some fear being sued.

In 1946 Congress passed the Federal Regulation of Lobbying (a constitutionaly guaranteed right) Act. Of course, the act was beat to a pulp and in 1995 Bill Clinton did something useful and helped strengthen the idea that it should be public knowledge as to who or whom is trying to get what from OUR government. Overview:

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0698/ijde/lobby.htm

Before the passage of the 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act, lawmakers had become increasingly aware that lobbying was an activity viewed by many voters with suspicion and cynicism. Public disenchantment was not new, however. It dated back to the earliest years of the Republic when voters questioned the access of special interests to those in power, especially when the results of that access were viewed as inimical to the public welfare.

"an activity viewed by many voters with suspicion and cynicism"

Anyone reading this feel that way?

Some would argue that we must not know who is lobby our government. The Post writer states:

(in 1960) the Supreme Court in NAACP v. Alabama decided that the anti-segregationist organization could keep its membership lists private. That was certainly the right thing to do. But by protecting nonprofit groups like the NAACP from mandatory disclosure, the court also opened the door to wholesale concealment of would-be public policy manipulators.

'Certainly' the right thing to do but opened the doors? That's a schizophrenic, useless statement like saying cutting ones head off puts a stop to headaches.

Once again, as in so many of the 'knowing the truth' issues, the argument boils down to 'you people can't handle the truth'. Maybe that was important in 1960 if supporting the NAACP could get you killed. Maybe it also conceals cynical and suspicious alliances like, say, a timber company supporting an environmental group so they can, as they may see it, help steer opposition in a productive manner.

Maybe it's all innocent and obvious like an investment firm secretly lobbying for Social Security reform. Or trial lawyers lobbying against tort reform. Secret but makes sense.

Or maybe not. Maybe lawyers are lobbying against reform publicly but secretly funding pro reform lobbying because they expect it to generate new law $uit$ anyway.

Voting is a private act; the individual making his choice. Lobbying groups can help him make an informed decision by making their case in TV commercials or pamphlets. But they clearly hurt the process when those who are to be voted for or against are being lobby'd directly, in essence going behind the voters back. And it is made worse yet when the voter can't even find out who is soliciting his representative.

Suspicion and cynicism, yes?

In any event, I'm all for free speech.

And I'm all for voters being able to speak back;

By knowing who is saying (and asking for) what.