TRANSPARENCY

TRANSPARENCY:  (2)( a) Free from pretense or deceit. Frank. (b)  Easily detected or seen through. (c): Readily understood. (Websters Collegiate -10th edition - 1994). 

It's a word or term we've been throwing around at least since 1897 with H.G. Wells sci-fi novella entitled "The Invisible Man" which - incidentally - is the same title as an excellent book from the 1950's by Ralph Ellison that plead the case for the average negro male. 

Transparency  - unlike the more recently popular and politically correct terms "undocumented" and "conscious uncoupling" that came around a little later - also apparently means many things to many different people and organizations.

The "T" word is perhaps the most overused and abused word used by the media as well as the three branches of our government. 

The last time I checked , the Supreme court still did not allow their hearings and decisions to be televised. 

 Our Congress does most of its business - not on the Congressional floor where it can be viewed from the gallery, but instead  in their designated offices or over on K-street - a favorite location for the lobbyists who actually make many of the decisions that reveal themselves in various laws that are passed - and even some that are not.

Finally, there is the Executive branch and our current "transparent" President who ran two successful Presidential campaigns based on a commitment to leading a battle for - of all things - "transparency"

Apparently, beauty is not the only thing that is in the eye of the beholder - or perhaps the vision from their eyes gets fuzzy with age and an increase in gray hair, as well.

The Republican party - and their two divisive branches - are seemingly more confused about most things than the beseeched and bemused movie characters "Lloyd Christmas" and "Harry Dunne"from the film classics: "Dumb and Dumber" and "Dumb and Dumber, Too."

But, on one philosophical front the GOP appears to be unanimous. This would be their recent agreement on a not so valiant crusade to insert in the infamous current spending bill one of those nasty riders we've all come to know and hate.

This latest example of non-transparency is also not meant to illuminate but to obfuscate - this time using more corporate chicanery as a sub-plot.

The irony however, is that it readily becomes "transparent" because once again the GOP  quest in a land not all that far, far away is to replace  transparency via sneakiness. 

The goal of the rider is to hide the identity of the corporate entities via blocking the Security and Exchange Commissions in their continuing efforts to make companies disclose political contributions.

The fact that most of these executives do so using their shareholders money and despite the shareholder  right to know what's being done with it has apparently escaped the oft sought after logical branch of the good old GOP.

Their tact this time in attempting to block anything not "Made in Republican" was to specifically "prohibit fiscal 2016 funding for the SEC to finalize or implement any rule to force political disclosure." (USA Today, P- 2B - Money - December 31, 2015) 

This new tactic by the Republicans - who also adore almost anything corporate that comes with "campaign contributions" - in a non-examined suitcase - seemed to offend the guys and gals on the other side of the aisle.

The Democrats - 94 strong  -sent a letter to the SEC accompanied by a legal opinion from a Harvard law professor that "The provision (see rider") does not bar the SEC from discussing, planning, investigating, or developing plans or proposals for a rule or regulation relating to disclosure of political contributions"

A  few of those Public interest groups I often refer to like the "The Corporate Reform Coalition",  "Center For Public Accountability" and "Public Citizen" (which is not to be confused with "Citizens United") didn't agree with the guys and gals who have the elephant mascot. and decided to go along with the donkeys.

The "C.U." above would be that of the "5 Supremes" whose politically driven 2010 decision  redefined corporations as your good neighbors who had the right to make unlimited donations to political parties or candidates.

Staying in the "Animal Farm" mode, the "watchdog" groups happened to side with the Democrats possibly because they seemed to believe that "shareholders have a right to know how company executives are spending the funds that rightfully belong to them."

You know, here we go again, that whole burdensome issue about fairness - raising it's ugly head once more. 

By the way, how are things working out with that 2010 court decision? 

Bottom line. We need to recognize and financially support these advocate groups because, like the airlines, we are not going to ever get Congress to govern themselves despite all the promises to the contrary. And yes, they are also there on our dime.

Worse yet, if we don't do something about the growing lack of transparency we're soon going to be surrounded with more and more people asking us:"What the Hell is an H.G. Wells?"

Let 's wrap this up with the above newspaper's closing summation on the subject:

 "In any case, a law passed under the cover of darkness designed to keep investors in   the dark about how executives spend company money has now been put under a      'spotlight.'"

"Spotlight": A burdensome and odd shaped electrical object of various sizes and wattage designed so as to be difficult for northern males to pack neatly in odd shaped boxes and destined to be squeezed on the coldest day of winter into either or both an attic or garage - often on homemade dusty wooden and concrete block shelves - in a forgotten but pre-determined location somewhere between the over sized beach umbrella, the Mad-Max industrial sized cooler with the extension handle and reinforced wheels , the 6 folding shore chairs, the two person beach tent in a box, the three wheel remodeled beach baby buggy carrier and stacks of those mismatched but oh- so- comfy "Chuck Taylor All Star" sneaks from their days of athletic prowess in another century - but still very adaptive  for beach walking - in the new one - of course.) (Sullivan - 2016)

Now, that's the kind of  a "transparency" definition I can live with.