LegiStorm Creates Legal and Ethical Discussion

A debate has emerged on the Capitol and around the country about LegiStorm. Legistorm is a website devoted to making public the financial disclosures of Congressional staffers. Many staffers are upset that these disclosures are becoming public in such a broad manner. One can simply go to www.legistorm.com, register for free, and have access to staffers' investments and bank accounts. Also, one can come across signatures of the staffers and addresses. This has caused a debate to ensue. Is it a violation of privacy? Or, as a public servant, are these aids required to allow the general public to view their financial information?

The fact of the matter is this: These documents have always been made available to the public, which confuses the issue. Since these documents have always been available, why is there so much of a fuss now? Basically, it all comes down to ease of discovery. When something is a mere click away, people get wound up. A document can be buried in the back of a room somewhere, and people don't get worried. Now, however, these documents have been adapted for the type of nation we have become. We like to do our research online. The best way to get something noticed is to put it on the internet.

Public servitude requires a kind of devotion that most of us are not capable of. In a sense, if a person becomes a public servant, they are the employee of the United States of America. They are an employee of mine, and of yours, as well. I think that as a citizen of this country, I have a right to know how much money my employees are making. I need to know what kind of lobbyist my employees are associated with. Are they receiving financial gifts of some sort? It is well within my rights as a voting American to look over these documents. Consider it a form of checks and balances. I don't want a Congressional free for all with money falling from the sky. I want documentation and accountability.

One must wonder, are the people in Washington truly upset about this public disclosure because of the fear of privacy violations, or are they more worried that an effort is being sincerely made to patrol their spending and receiving? For example, the website has already assisted in the discovery of a spending irregularity in regards to the campaign of John Murtha. By viewing the public disclosures of Murtha's chief of staff, this problem was able to be discovered and addressed. Without the ease of access that LegiStorm provides, this irregularity may have never been noticed.

The intentions of this movement to disband LegiStorm must be considered. Are we willing to change the law and no longer require congressional aids to disclose their finances? We need to realize that this system was put in place for a reason. It may be a reason that some staffers don't like, but still, it is a legitimate reason that offers the citizens of this country protection. When our tax dollars are involved, we deserve to know that they are being spent and received in an appropriate fashion.

Christopher Bateman, "LegiStorm Casts Rain Clouds in D.C.", Vanity Fair

Jaison Baby, "LegiStorm Personal Finance Issues" (as taken from the Washington Post), iamjaison.blogspot