Trust Us, We’re Spies (continued)

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.



previous

At the other end of the secrecy spectrum, the CIA continues to ardently defend a far more important piece of information — the amount of taxpayer money the U.S. spends each year on intelligence activities. Long an official state secret, the total intelligence budget total has also long been one of the worst-kept secrets in government. The number, which was easy enough to approximate using open sources of declassified information, was often inadvertently released, anyway. But because of the number’s size — about $27 billion — and the fact it wasn’t broken down into how much was allocated for each of the intelligence community’s hundreds of specific projects, it shed little light on how the money was actually spent.

According to openness advocates, however, that wasn’t the issue. What was and is important, is government accountability to the public. In the words of Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), without some insight into the CIA budget, “the American public will be unable to participate meaningfully in deliberations about intelligence spending.”

Given the CIA’s recent track record — the bombing of the Chinese embassy is a case in point — more, not less, insight into intelligence spending is warranted, according to advocates for greater openness.

Aftergood, who runs the FAS Project on Government Secrecy, has been after the intelligence budget figure for years. In 1997, his FOIA lawsuit forced the release of the total intelligence appropriation figures, but only after the CIA and other agencies had spent the money. In 1998, the CIA director released the figure only after Aftergood threatened a lawsuit, but by the time it came out the money was already being spent. Still, it was progress. This year Aftergood took another step, amending his case for the fiscal year 1999 figure by asking for the amount requested by the President for intelligence spending, in addition to the actual amount appropriated by Congress. The difference, of course, would indicate what amount of money Congress added to or subtracted from the President’s request.

 

next

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest