post 4
In a perfect world there would be no whistleblowers, not because they are what is wrong with the world, but because without any problems, there would be nothing to blow your whistle on. A whistleblower is someone who informs on the illegal misdoings of a company or government. It is repeatedly proven that companies will entities will engage in illegal activities to increase profits or power. Conforming to regulations can often be very expensive, and companies will conceal whatever they can to keep costs low. The deep pockets of these corporations allows them to intimidate all who try to stand against them. Using their money for evil. The current precedent on the treatment of whistleblowers is very harsh. In the private sector whistleblowers are blacklisted and in the government sector blowing one’s whistle will literally uproot your life. Companies and governments will go as far as legally possible, and sometimes further to get revenge. [Corporations should not use their power and money to destroy the lives of Whistleblowers because they are what keeps progress moving.]
Every day large corporations take advantage of their workers, and the surrounding environment to put more money in their pockets. Luckily in the USA we have regulations on the amount of destruction a company can dole out on the earth and its people. Even with theses regulations companies do whatever they can to circumnavigate these rules, and the government agencies don’t have the necessary resources to police every single corporation. Whistleblowers extend the watchful eye of these regulatory agencies.
Blowing the whistle usually results in serious harm to one’s living. Looking at previous cases in which companies have broken laws and been reported on, many whistleblowers have faced heavy retaliation. In the case of Paradigm Capital Mgmt., an internal whistleblower informed the SEC of a conflict of interest going on in the firm. After the incident was reported the firm “removed the whistleblower from the head trader position, tasked the whistleblower with investigating the very conduct that had been reported to the SEC while blocking access to any meaningful resources to do so, . . . and stripped the whistleblower of supervisory responsibilities,” These actions led to the whistleblowers eventual resignation. This was standard practice before government legislation gave whistleblowers various degrees of protections. In this situation the result was a court battle between the SEC and the firm, in which the SEC won. This case was the first to set a precedent in private sector whistleblower defence. Without the help of the SEC the owners of Paradigm would have been able to punish their employees for acting with morals.
Governments commit violations of their own laws just like corporations . It is because of this corruption that our founding fathers wrote this clause in the declaration of Independence. “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,…” This means that the government’s duty is to serve us, and in the case of it not doing so we have the duty to fix it. This was the intent of Edward Snowden. Snowden was an information analyst at the NSA. During his tenure there it became evident to him that the government was engaging in mass data mining and spying on it’s citizens. He collected information on the government activities and released it to the world. In retaliation the USA went on a worldwide Manhunt for him. They were not able to catch him and he is currently hiding in Russia. Actions such as these call into questions the goals of our government. In an essay by William and Mary law, exploring the intent of snowden they discuss the necessity of such recourse by the government . W&M law writes, “Although many scholars have suggested that intent should play a role in the badly needed revision of the Espionage Act and related statutes, the literature lacks a vigorous study of why intent should matter” this quote illuminates a key problem with providing defense for whistleblowers. There are no studies going into such an obvious thing as why intent should matter. The people who fund these studies wont pay for studies that are detrimental to their cause. It is difficult to argue against national security and limitless funds being poured into influencing public opinion. The government can spin any matter in any way and it takes a reasoned and rational mind to see past their curtains.
Whistleblowers are not the evil people that big money tries to make you think they are. They are not committing treason or out to destroy companies, rather they exist to inform the public of shady dealings going on behind closed doors. Whistleblowers police the insanely rich liars and cheaters of the world. The objective of a whistleblowers is simply to inform the public of things being hidden from them. Arguing against whistleblowers is arguing against transparency and Freedom of Speech.
SEC Annual Report 2014, supra note 3, at 18; see Paradigm Capital Mgmt., Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 72393, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 3857, 2014 WL 2704311 (June 16,2014).
US Const., art. 1, sec. 1. Print.
