Recently the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that denied a newspaper’s request to see how much grocery stores collected from SNAP. Several members of the U.S. Senate have introduced legislation that would correct this injustice. In their press release announcing the measure, Sen. John Cornyn said, “The Freedom of Information Act is a cornerstone of our country’s belief in open and transparent government. As court rulings are released and case law changes, updates like this must be made to FOIA to improve compliance and ensure Americans can continue to hold those who represent them accountable.”
Strong Republicans and ardent Democrats tend to not agree on much. Our system and its progress is built on compromise. Both sides of the aisle recognize they cannot win every battle or get everything they want. Each side relents and compromise leads to legislation.
That is how the federal government tends to work (at least when it is at its best).
That said, there are a few times when both sides recognize a problem. While Republicans Charles Grassley and John Cornyn and Democrats Patrick Leahy and Dianne Feinstein have strong differences on a multitude of policies, they agree as Senator Grassley puts it “transparency is something worth fighting for.”
If Senator Grassley and Senator Feinstein can agree on the value of transparency why can’t the rest of us demand it? As taxpayers, do we not deserve to know where our money is spent? For decades, county governments have been a shin- ing example of transparency. While it might come as a shock to many among us financial concerns of the county government are a better of public record. Checks from county government to contractors fixing everything from roads to fences are routinely published in newspaper.
Everything from the cost of the light bill to how much a county spends on telephone services can be gleamed from these disclosures. They aren’t hidden in obscurity but rather the county is forced to publishthem in a “paper of record”within the county. You can easily determine how much any contractor or service provider is receiving from the county.
On the state level, the salary of any state employee is easily accessible on the internet - everyone from a janitor at a local college to the president of the University of Oklahoma.
To the best of my memory, no one has ever written a letter to us complaining that the check from the county to them was public record. The janitor who barely scrapes by, making slightly more than minimum wage, has never called to tell us she wishes her neighbors didn’t know how little she had.
Yet, somehow Walmart and other large retailers did more than complain. They sued to argue that these numbers would adversely impact their business. They weren’t being asked to report how much each individual grossed or even how much each store collected from SNAP recipients. They were simply being asked, as a chain, how much do they collect from SNAP.
When John Doe's Pluming fixes a water leak for the county, he doesn't have any right to privacy when it comes to the check. That check for $287.56 will be printed in the local newspaper along with many others. What kind of system avails the business with fewer resources, less rights than a multinational conglomerate?
The recent decision by the U.S Supreme Court in “FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE v. ARGUS LEADER MEDIA, DBA ARGUS LEADER” avail large retailers rights and privileges not available to others.
The Court has granted the large grocers the right to determine what is confidential. No vendor of the government who resides on Main Street America has that privilege.
So, I ask you, why do large retailers deserve protections not granted to others?
Please join me in asking the United States Senate and House of Representatives to pass the Open and Responsive Government Act.
This is not an attempt to vilify those who receive assis- tance. There are millions of Americans who fall on hard times and need short-term assistance in order to put food on the table. But if the payment to the plumber is an open record than so should the $71 billion that was spent on SNAP in 2016.