I think, however, that when "private" citizens temporarily take the
role of (sovereign) voters and via elections form "We the People" the
otherwise "private" citizens are acting as governors. See
Montesquieu's The Spirit of Laws. (Montesquieu is the most-quoted
political theorist both before and after the American Revolution).
This is why our system is called "self-government" and why Adams
referred to a people fit to be "their own governors." Certainly this
point is most clearly seen when voters vote on initiatives and
referenda, exercising direct law-making powers. But in regular
elections where citizens delegate their power to an elected
representative, the very act of delegating shows the citizens
(temporary, but critical) superiority of status. Thus, we often refer
to the elected as the "servants" of the public, or public servants.
All the way back to Montesquieu, it has been recognized that citizens
in a republic occupy two different statuses, that of a subject (nearly
all of the time) and that of a sovereign (in the process of voting or
exercising their suffrage, as Jefferson's copy of Montesquieu states
in his own handwriting, for emphasis...). So, when voting I think it
is fair to say that accountability applies in connection with voting
and also with voters. The government must be accountable for a fair
ballot count and election process, and the voters accountable to each
other to not so distort the process in any way such that a "free
election" is not had: free from force, fraud, undue influence or any
other corrupting influence or power that acts to distort the
measurement of the voice of the will of the People. I think this is
clearly what the guarantee of "free" elections means, at its core.
The real debate, as applied in campaign finance, is whether via the
power of money to buy repeated advertising, the power of propaganda is
or is not considered to be a corruption or distortion of the will of
the people. Granted that rationale was imperfectly theorized in
Austin, but it is still the core of the normative debate, as I see it,
within the camp of those who believe in self-government.
Paul Lehto, J.D.
On 4/1/11, Steve Hoersting <hoersting@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with you on this point, Paul: no disclosure/transparency in *
government* is a problem. (Indeed, you might have penned the op-ed along
with the two journalists).
However, no disclosure/transparency in the affairs of private associations
is the rule.
Disclosure/transparency of a private association's independent expenditures
-- the exception to the rule for private associations -- cannot further
interests in "corruption," only the "informational" interest.
People on my side say that when are demanding disclosure under the exception
to the rule for private associations -- to further the "informational"
interest -- it is important to consider the scope of disclosure. In
determining the scope we consider the cost.
Which gets us back to the point of the op-ed (and of my post): Even the
strongest proponents of IE disclosure, and I'd put Team Obama in that camp,
see that there are *costs* in disclosure. Or at least their actions, well
documented in the op-ed, suggest that they see do.
Best,
Steve
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/1/11, Steve Hoersting <hoersting@gmail.com> wrote:
The theme of their *WaPo* piece is that the Obama administration is not
at
all keen on disclosure.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/wheres-the-transparency-that-obama-promised/2011/03/31/AFipwHCC_print.html
[snip] -- we get the sense that there may be
well something to at least two theories about disclosure, and that even
disclosure's advocates get it:
1) that the burden of disclosure must be balanced against its costs
2) that disclosure, either demanded or provided, is often a tool and
accelerant for retribution
What I "get" is that without disclosure/transparency, accountability
is not possible. Who can really be in favor of un-accountability in
government?
What is being styled as "retribution" is at best a minor percentage of
the overall and critical process of accountability in government.
--
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI 49849
lehto.paul@gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
--
Steve Hoersting
CENTER FOR COMPETITIVE POLITICS
124 West Street South
Suite 201
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
SHoersting@campaignfreedom.org
www.campaignfreedom.org
(703) 894-6800 phone