1 00:00:02,149 --> 00:00:06,580 When you hear the word “transparency,” what comes to mind? 2 00:00:06,580 --> 00:00:12,280 Chances are that you associate the word with a lot of good things, like “openness,” 3 00:00:12,280 --> 00:00:17,560 “honesty,” “accountability,” and maybe even “integrity.” 4 00:00:17,560 --> 00:00:21,539 In a better world, those associations would be accurate. 5 00:00:21,540 --> 00:00:27,300 But in the world of the progressive left, “transparency” means something very different. 6 00:00:27,300 --> 00:00:32,360 And you need to be aware of that meaning or you risk becoming a victim of it. 7 00:00:32,360 --> 00:00:38,400 Everybody – on the left and the right – agrees that transparency in government is a good thing. 8 00:00:38,400 --> 00:00:43,620 With the exception of issues involving national security, the government should be transparent 9 00:00:43,620 --> 00:00:45,070 in its dealings. 10 00:00:45,070 --> 00:00:50,880 The public has a right to know what the government is doing with your tax dollars. 11 00:00:50,880 --> 00:00:55,600 But transparency means something completely different when it comes to the private, 12 00:00:55,600 --> 00:00:57,660 non-government, realm. 13 00:00:57,660 --> 00:01:01,920 Take, for example, where you chose to donate your money. 14 00:01:01,920 --> 00:01:07,300 Transparency in this case means that there is a public record of your donation. 15 00:01:07,300 --> 00:01:10,680 Now, this might sound okay, but it isn’t. 16 00:01:10,680 --> 00:01:11,740 Why? 17 00:01:11,740 --> 00:01:19,500 Because it puts you on the radar of your political opponents and makes you a potential target. 18 00:01:19,500 --> 00:01:26,920 Scott Eckern was a theatre director in Sacramento, CA who gave a $1,000 donation to support the 19 00:01:26,920 --> 00:01:30,040 traditional definition of marriage. 20 00:01:30,040 --> 00:01:32,320 Maybe you don’t agree with Scott’s position. 21 00:01:32,320 --> 00:01:33,740 That’s your right. 22 00:01:33,740 --> 00:01:39,000 But the LA Times didn’t just disagree, they put every single donation 23 00:01:39,000 --> 00:01:42,060 made by people like Scott online. 24 00:01:42,060 --> 00:01:48,780 Scott Eckern lost his job, and others faced boycotts and blacklisting, all because of 25 00:01:48,780 --> 00:01:55,380 "so called" transparency in an area of life that should be private. 26 00:01:55,380 --> 00:01:59,740 Through most of our nation’s history, what happened to Scott Eckern wouldn’t have happened: 27 00:01:59,750 --> 00:02:04,750 if you made a political donation, your identity was not exposed. 28 00:02:04,750 --> 00:02:08,250 But under pressure from the left, this is changing. 29 00:02:08,250 --> 00:02:14,060 In New York, for example, it’s now the law that if a non-profit organization advocates 30 00:02:14,060 --> 00:02:20,489 against a position taken by an elected official, it must disclose to the government the identities 31 00:02:20,489 --> 00:02:24,180 of all the organization’s significant donors. 32 00:02:24,180 --> 00:02:29,740 Faced with this prospect, most people would just as soon avoid the risk altogether. 33 00:02:29,740 --> 00:02:34,800 Safer, in other words, to keep your mouth shut and your checkbook closed. 34 00:02:34,800 --> 00:02:39,240 Even when state officials promise to keep this donor information confidential, 35 00:02:39,240 --> 00:02:40,980 you can’t trust them. 36 00:02:40,980 --> 00:02:47,120 In 2015, the California attorney general, Kamala Harris, now a U.S. Senator, demanded 37 00:02:47,129 --> 00:02:53,769 that nonprofits disclose their donor lists to the state, and then her office "accidentally" 38 00:02:53,769 --> 00:02:57,440 posted this private donor information online. 39 00:02:57,440 --> 00:03:02,900 But even if the government kept that information secret, it’s none of its business. 40 00:03:02,900 --> 00:03:09,459 Because while transparency is a government obligation, privacy is an individual right. 41 00:03:09,460 --> 00:03:10,720 How do we know? 42 00:03:10,720 --> 00:03:13,100 Because of the First Amendment. 43 00:03:13,100 --> 00:03:20,840 In the 1950s, the state of Alabama tried to force the NAACP, to disclose its membership lists. 44 00:03:20,860 --> 00:03:26,379 This demand came at a time when civil rights activists faced physical threats and economic 45 00:03:26,380 --> 00:03:30,200 reprisals for standing up for basic human rights. 46 00:03:30,200 --> 00:03:35,279 Fortunately, the Supreme Court stepped in and ruled unanimously that the First Amendment 47 00:03:35,280 --> 00:03:42,240 protected their right of freedom of association, and that included protection from prying eyes. 48 00:03:42,240 --> 00:03:47,800 Progressives say we need “transparency” to expose the so-called “dark money” behind 49 00:03:47,800 --> 00:03:51,480 non-profits and political candidates they don’t like. 50 00:03:51,480 --> 00:03:57,540 Exactly what those racist bigots said about contributions to the NAACP in the 1950s. 51 00:03:57,540 --> 00:04:00,849 Anonymous speech has been a blessing for this country. 52 00:04:00,849 --> 00:04:04,500 Anonymous pamphleteers helped launch the American Revolution. 53 00:04:04,500 --> 00:04:07,819 Anonymous writers helped ratify the Constitution. 54 00:04:07,819 --> 00:04:13,739 Anonymous activists helped liberate black Americans from the oppression of Jim Crow. 55 00:04:13,740 --> 00:04:18,560 But if we’re not careful, anonymity will soon be a thing of the past. 56 00:04:18,560 --> 00:04:23,040 If the message is “you have free speech to address the issues, but only if you don’t 57 00:04:23,040 --> 00:04:27,270 care about the consequences,” then fewer people will speak freely. 58 00:04:27,270 --> 00:04:29,910 And for those on the left, that’s just fine. 59 00:04:29,910 --> 00:04:32,560 In fact, that’s the intent. 60 00:04:32,560 --> 00:04:37,560 Here’s what David Callahan writes in the left-leaning journal, Inside Philanthropy: 61 00:04:37,560 --> 00:04:42,000 “If the donors can’t [take the heat], they can choose not to give.” 62 00:04:42,000 --> 00:04:44,780 So, now you’re wise to the game. 63 00:04:44,789 --> 00:04:49,780 The next time you hear a politician or an activist talking about “transparency,” 64 00:04:49,780 --> 00:04:53,539 ask a simple question: Who should be transparent? 65 00:04:53,539 --> 00:04:56,389 If he says the government, tell him yes. 66 00:04:56,389 --> 00:05:00,480 If he says you, the private citizen, tell him no. 67 00:05:00,480 --> 00:05:03,900 Your speech is your business. 68 00:05:03,900 --> 00:05:07,800 I’m David French for Prager University.