The Right to Know

Everyone knows that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that “Congress shall make no law…” prohibiting free speech.

What many forget is that said Amendment also protects freedom of the press, the right to peaceful assembly, the right to petition their government, freedom from an established religion and the freedom to exercise one’s chosen religion. That is five more guaranteed freedoms besides speech.

All are equally important.

The efforts to “expose” the individual contributors to various political action committees (PACS) in the name of reform or informing the public of their “right to know” are trampling more than one First Amendment right.

People have to the right to peacefully assemble with whomever they want, give money to whomever they want to speak for them, petition their government, espouse their religious views on a political issue and be free from harassment from either the government or other private citizens.

Liberals claim that whenever a group exercises its rights and opposes their sacred cows, the public right to know compels releasing the names of the individual contributors.

Intimidation is their motivation. And by so doing they are denying the most essential rights of a free society.

When evaluating a candidate, character, competence and experience all come into play. The more important the job is to us, the more importance character carries, but it is subjective and hard to judge. When faced with conflicting interests and influences, we want to know how a given candidate is likely to sway.

Think of your private life, and the choice of your mate, a confidant, an employer, or an employee. When a decision is hard, will he/she stand with you, or follow some personal agenda? Who has power over them? Who are their partners, their family and friends, their advisors?

To whom do they owe their money?

The less consequential the “job,” the less we need to know.

For most of our public officials we need to know a lot, particularly to whom are they beholden? Where do their most egregious conflicts of interests lay? Where will they be most tempted to stray from our interests when executing the powers of their office?

Where must we be most vigilant?

Judges put into office through anonymous campaign contributions come to mind. How comfortable would you be with your life, family, or “fortune” exposed to the vulnerabilities of this form of the unknown?

The anonymous and the undisclosed are seldom the friends of virtue. Be not fooled.