December 01, 2003
Sunshine Laws
I see that Schwarzenegger is putting quite a bit of his weight behind government Sunshine Laws to mandate more transparency in government decision making. (See also here.) This really isn’t much of a partisan issue because both Democrats and Republicans seem to dislike broad sunshine laws. With respect to national government, I can think of quite a few secrets (mostly dealing with military or foreign policy issues) that need to be kept, but I can’t think of too many things which need to be secret in state decision-making. Both articles suggest that the legislature really wants to exempt itself from the laws, but that seems silly. What is the purpose in keeping their negotiations and such behind closed doors? I have yet to hear a really good argument against sunshine laws for state governments. Does anybody have one? It seems to me that accountability on the part of public servants is something which should be encouraged.
I also note that apparently California has fairly good sunshine laws on the books, but activist judges have made broad exemptions which have taken the teeth out of them.
Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw at December 1, 2003 03:51 AMMay I suggest something? Start a letter-writing campaign asking Dick Cheney to reveal who he consulted with on energy policy, and what they said. When you can get sunshine on such issues in Washington, you might be able to get it in California.
Of course, there is a potential hitch there. Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, if I’m not mistaken, are long time opponents to the Freedom of Information Act.
It is no coincidence that this administration has been one of the most tight-lipped of them all, especially on Iraq and 9/11.
Posted by: Steve Daugherty at December 1, 2003 11:24 AMbut I can’t think of too many things which need to be secret in state decision-making.
You got me on that one, Sebastian. I can’t think of any save for perhaps some legislation that specifies limits or capacities on police sting operations or some such. But, even then, the public should have the right to insure that such legislation is pending and that judicial review is built into such laws.
I have to agree, this is more than political ploy on the Governor’s part, this will be helpful to the people of California. I would however, withhold judgement on your activist judges assessment if I lived in Ca. until I knew more about their rulings and their rationale.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 1, 2003 04:54 PMDavid:
The information which the government holds and which should be kept secret falls into two general categories:
1. Private information.
This is data about YOU and I that the government holds for various reasons. Let’s say you were arrested for DUI, but found innocent. This data should not be made public.
2. Information of military value to our opponents
Our military strategies and plans should be kept secret. They would give an opponent a strategic edge, and potentially a number of tactical advantages also, in a conflict. When this information escapes, people die.
Think of the list of CIA agents that was sold a couple of decades ago — many of those agents were executed by foreign government. That does not help recruitment.
Will
Posted by: Will Spencer at January 24, 2004 03:21 PM
