Table of Contents:
I. Introduction
II. The Meaning of Transparency
III. Transparency in Government
IV. Transparency in Private Donations
V. The Risks of Transparency
VI. The Importance of Privacy
VII. The First Amendment and Freedom of Association
VIII. The Dangers of Anonymity
IX. The Intent of the Left
X. Conclusion
---
The Risks of Transparency
Transparency is a word that is often associated with positive values such as openness, honesty, accountability, and integrity. However, in the world of the progressive left, transparency means something very different. In this article, we will explore the meaning of transparency and its implications for private citizens.
The Meaning of Transparency
Transparency is the quality of being open and honest about one's actions and intentions. In the context of government, transparency means that the government should be open and honest about its dealings with the public. The public has a right to know what the government is doing with their tax dollars.
Transparency in Government
Transparency in government is generally seen as a good thing, with the exception of issues involving national security. The government should be transparent in its dealings with the public. However, transparency means something completely different when it comes to the private, non-government realm.
Transparency in Private Donations
Take, for example, where you choose to donate your money. Transparency in this case means that there is a public record of your donation. This might sound okay, but it isn't. Why? Because it puts you on the radar of your political opponents and makes you a potential target.
Scott Eckern was a theater director in Sacramento, California, who gave a one thousand dollar donation to support the traditional definition of marriage. Maybe you don't agree with Scott's position, and that's your right. But the LA Times didn't just disagree, they put every single donation made by people like Scott online. Scott Eckern lost his job, and others faced boycotts and blacklisting, all because of so-called transparency in an area of life that should be private.
Through most of our nation's history, what happened to Scott Eckern wouldn't have happened. If you made a political donation, your identity was not exposed. But under pressure from the left, this is changing. In New York, for example, it's now the law that if a nonprofit organization advocates against a position taken by an elected official, it must disclose to the government the identities of all the organization's significant donors.
The Importance of Privacy
Faced with this prospect, most people would just as soon avoid the risk altogether. Safer, in other words, to keep your mouth shut and your checkbook closed. Even when state officials promise to keep this donor information confidential, you can't trust them. In 2015, the California Attorney General, Kamala Harris, demanded that nonprofits disclose their donor lists to the state, and then her office accidentally posted this private donor information online.
But even if the government kept that information secret, it's none of its business. Because while transparency is a government obligation, privacy is an individual right.
The First Amendment and Freedom of Association
How do we know? Because of the First Amendment. In the 1950s, the state of Alabama tried to force the NAACP to disclose its membership lists. This demand came at a time when civil rights activists faced physical threats and economic reprisals for standing up for basic human rights. Fortunately, the Supreme Court stepped in and ruled unanimously that the First Amendment protected their right of freedom of association, and that included protection from prying eyes.
The Dangers of Anonymity
Progressives say we need transparency to expose the so-called "dark money" behind nonprofits and political candidates they don't like. Exactly what those racist bigots said about contributions to the NAACP in the 1950s. Anonymous speech has been a blessing for this country. Anonymous pamphleteers helped launch the American Revolution. Anonymous riders helped ratify the Constitution. Anonymous activists helped liberate black Americans from the oppression of Jim Crow.
But if we're not careful, anonymity will soon be a thing of the past. If the message is "you have free speech to address the issues, but only if you don't care about the consequences," then fewer people will speak freely. And for those on the left, that's just fine. In fact, that's the intent.
The Intent of the Left
Here's what David Callahan writes in the left-leaning journal Inside Philanthropy: "If the donors can't take the heat, they can choose not to give." So now you're wise to the game. The next time you hear a politician or an activist talking about transparency, ask a simple question: Who should be transparent? If he says the government, tell him yes. If he says you, the private citizen, tell him no. Your speech is your business.
Conclusion
In conclusion, transparency is a word that is often associated with positive values, but in the world of the progressive left, it means something very different. Transparency in government is generally seen as a good thing, but transparency in private donations can be dangerous. It puts private citizens on the radar of their political opponents and makes them potential targets. Privacy is an individual right, and the First Amendment protects our right of freedom of association. Anonymity has been a blessing for this country, and we must be careful not to let it become a thing of the past.
