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?
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.
All of those things are already illegal, and no law forcing the opinions of private citizens to be made public will ever reveal that behavior.
No law is going to force President Hillary Clinton to release tapes of her secret meetings wherein she negotiates our surrender for a few billion from Communist Chinese Party leaders.
The Democrats are pushing this just because they want to have proof that Ken Lay was against regulation (duh!) so they can then allege that he pulled Bush’s strings on some legislation somewhere.
It’s a political pinata masquerading as some sort of freedom of information issue.
The bottom line is that private citizens should be able to offer advice to government officials in confidence. That’s the freedom position.
And when President Hillary implements socialistic policies, she needs to be held accountable, not her old college professors.
"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."
Not exactly. As we've seen...especially as it relates to 9/11, there are times when the publics right to know will trump executive privacy...and thats what the courts are for.
The ghost of my English teaching mother demands that the word "alterior" be corrected to "ulterior".
Returning now to the regularly scheduled debate, carry on.
Criminal investigations result from crimes. Information which is needed for criminal investigations are not protected by privilege or separation of powers.
As to merely bad motives- that should only be handled politically in a free society.