(4 of 6)
On a smaller scale, air travelers have had their "right to know" needlessly impaired by a relatively unnoticed act of Congress. It recently voted an increase in the tax on airline tickets to help finance the campaign against aerial hijacking, but in so doing also prohibited disclosure of the amount of a fare that goes toward taxes, thereby effectively hiding the size of the increase from the person who pays it. The Civil Aeronautics Board has accused the Senate Finance Committee of responsibility for this curious use of secrecy, even though the CAB has been guilty of some public-be-damned pettifoggery of its own. It recently authorized airlines to "round off" fares upward to the next dollar, which means that passengers are now paying, say, $41 for a ticket that formerly cost $40.10. This may be a modest windfall for the hard-pressed airlines, but the CAB has nonetheless authorized a disguised overcharge for air passengers.
In Sealed Envelopes. A few members of Congress have protested vigorously against the spreading cloak of governmental secrecy, notably Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, who is concerned about national security affairs, and Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina, who regards the proliferation of domestic intelligence activities as a serious threat to individual civil rights. It should be added, though, that the House and Senate are often less than candid about their own operations. The requirement that politicians report their campaign spending, for example, is honored more in the breach than the observance, since only a tiny fraction of funds actually spent in campaigns is noted for the public record. According to law, Senators are required to release public reports only on fees received for speeches, articles and television appearances. But detailed information on their business interests and outside income is kept secret, in sealed envelopes available only to a Select Committee on Ethics—made up of fellow Senators. Members of the House need not list publicly the amount or value of stock they hold in banks and savings and loan associations, or, if they are lawyers, the names of their clients. Though such activities potentially involve conflicts of interest, information about them is reported under seal and is available only to a House committee.
Congress has done relatively little to promote legislation aimed at information disclosure in the public interest. Inspired by an investigation of Government secrecy practices undertaken by California Democrat John Moss, Congress in 1966 did pass the Freedom of Information Act. This law attempted to liberalize and standardize public information and disclosure policies of Government agencies, and authorized citizen suits in federal court to enjoin such agencies from the improper withholding of records and procedures. At the same time, Congress specifically exempted a plethora of areas, such as national defense and foreign policy, where right-to-know arguments normally arise. So far, the effect of the law on the Government's information disclosure policies has been almost nil.