Free people are entitled to privacy. Public servants hired to serve our best interests are not. We're their boss, and we are entitled to know what they're doing. An ignorant electorate cannot make intelligent informed opinions. The difference in their privacy vs ours comes from who serves who.
This is not about protecting public servants, its about protecting the right of private citizens to consult in private with the government.
If a woman in Oklahoma writes to her senator about a health care bill and includes personal information about her son’s medical condition, do you have a right to read that letter? Does the NY Times have a right to publish her letter? If not, why not? How is that any different?
How about a compromise - the consulants can remain anonymous, but what they say is public?
It would be better, but it still may hamper a private expert’s freedom to give a totally honest opinion on a controversial matter. He may not want that information known to the general public, for a variety of reasons, but may think it important that a policy maker know. It could be information that only a limited number of people know, and revealing it would jeopardize his position. Or it could put somebody who works for him in a foreign country in a dangerous position. Demanding that information like that be made public may not necessarily make for a better informed public. It might just make for less informed policy makers.
Dead, you seem like a reasonable person. Can you not see the immense potential for abuse here, and the danger of an ignorant electorate?
Nobody is saying that a private-sector expert cannot reveal his opinions or information to the public after revealing them in private. But you’re trying to use the courts to force them to. Yours is the big-government opinion.
On the other hand, there is the absolute certaintly that sooner or later (likely sooner) this privacy will be used to shield government's true motives. A policy may be announced with one stated purpose, but in truth there may be sinister alterior motives behind it, including graft, corruption and contempt for the will of the electorate. Actions may be taken for reasons that would infuriate voters, but rather than hearing the truth, all the public gets is a clever propaganda campaingn to sugarcoat and obscure the real powers at work.
An example would be President Hillary consulting with socialists on how to implement socialism and purposely deprive Americans of their independence. All this is hidden, and the public is given a shiny feel good diet of "It's for the children" instead.
How do we balance these two competing concerns?