Feed on

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the Doe v. Reed case. The case boils down to whether or not a state ought be forced to reveal the names of individuals who signed a ballot initiative. Aside from bizarrely Orwellian nature of disclosing the names of people who support a particular cause (i.e. would people support the idea of forcing the revelation of the names of who voted in each election, and for which candidate?), there is a small part of me that wishes to see this case decided in favor of disclosure.

Why? Well, just like the left was in favor of limits to executive power when their guy was not in office, only to do a complete 180 now that the Commander in Deceit is in the Executive Office, I partially look forward to the fits they would throw when the names of supporters of anti-Tabor amendments, or supporters of expansion of public unionization efforts push forward a ballot initiative that is unpopular.

Here’s another reason I would be interested in an unfavorable outcome (perhaps much like the reason the awful Kelo decision turned out to be a flash-point for the protection of property rights). I have long been of the belief that anyone who is a recipient of direct government patronage, via welfare programs, subsidies, etc. ought to not only have to ask publicly to get the favors, but then to have their identities aired in public for all to see. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see all the goodies your neighbors are getting at your expense? Wouldn’t it be interesting to have those people who seek to live on the lifeline of the state at the very least have to ask publicly for help. I know you can look up who gets farm subsidies (or at least some of them), but I am not aware of any of the other.

So, go ahead – fight hard for this to be decided in the favor of anti-privacy. That would be a great giant crowbar to allow me to unveil a whole lot of ugliness that is already going on and probably protected.

Leave a Reply