Washington is considering a proposal to add greater transparency to government to allow the public to see material online that is largely the domain of lobbyists today. The idea is to give the public equal access to government as lobbyists, an idea that Paul Miller, past president of the American League of Lobbyists warns is dangerous. After all, Miller notes, “what’s next? Are we going to let the American people decide our defense policy, our trade policy, our immigration policy?” Perish the thought.
The Sunlight Foundation went as far as to put the proposed Transparency in Government Act of 2008 on the Web at publicmarkup.org to allow the public to make recommendations and changes.
The bill would require Congress and the executive branch to be more transparent by making information, including sensitive financial data, available online.
For the full story, here.
I am all for the public being able to weigh in on any legislation. I don’t think the lobbyists have anything to worry about. I am sure that this “outbreak of democracy” won’t last long. But, it would be nice if it did.
“After all, Miller notes, “what’s next? Are we going to let the American people decide our defense policy, our trade policy, our immigration policy?”
*************************
This will go down with those other famous lines like “unsinkable Titanic,” “invincible Maginot line,” and, my favorite ” I did not have sex with that woman.”
Perhaps I’m shedding some of my cynical veneer, but my observation is that this is the likely follow-up step to the FOIA. Whether most of the public can wrap their head around this information – may not be the key benefit; however, it will certainly become very clear, when politicians and/or lobbyists are performing an act of obfuscation.
I’m actually very encouraged by this and believe that at the very least the public debate will have more teeth instead of always beginning with a National game of pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey (or elephant)
“After all, Miller notes, “what’s next? Are we going to let the American people decide our defense policy, our trade policy, our immigration policy?”
***********************
Silly me, I thought the phrase “a government FOR the people” actually meant something to our government officials. I guess politicians only remember that at election time, and forget it as soon as they take office. That’s certainly been the case since Bush took office anyway.
Mr. Miller,
U.S. defense, U.S. trade, U.S. immigration policy. How’s all that working out?
P.S. Susan,
Are you drinking your coffee today?:)
Jill
Susan, your reference to those wonderful words of our Founders about the intended ownership and beneficiaries of our democracy reminded me of something. We tend to say that famous phrase with the emphasis this way:
OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people.
Try it this way:
Of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE and for the PEOPLE.
I remember hearing radio host Thom Hartmann discussing this slight but important difference. I believe this was the intended emphasis of the Founders’ language and would baffle Lobbyist Miller even more.