A (4:37)

You just talked about the fact that they're using our tax dollars. Government runs on our tax dollars. And I think there is often a question of what kind of information is the public entitled to? Because of course, in the public interest, I think we're entitled to everything that tax dollars pay for. But I think there's a sense among a lot of people that are like, well, I don't know, am I allowed to see that? Is that really my right? Like, how do you think about that? Or how do you explain that to a layperson who doesn't maybe think about this a lot? And when evidence of wrongdoing by the government, with or without being in cahoots with big business, let's say, when that comes out, people are like, wait, how are we supposed to have found out? And how much of this were we supposed to know in advance?

B (5:21)

Every state and territory in the United States has what's known as a public records law, a public information act. They also have open meetings laws. There's a whole suite of open government laws. And on paper they're pretty good. So in theory, you as a resident, not even a citizen, but as a resident of most of these communities, can get information about how government is spending money, whether it's a contract for the school buses, whether it's a decision to hire somebody after they've been hired or in the final throes of being hired. So the school superintendent competition, for example, the public should have a lot of information about that. And certainly once somebody's hired, should be able to get their contract and how much they're being paid. And what kind of benefits they have. All this is how public funds are being used. But what happens is, and this sort of led me on my discovery to write this book. I know as a journalist pretty much what I'm entitled to get and I knew how to get it. And often I got obstructed by state and local governments, but I could still fight. And when I was at the post, and this is in the other era, we had a great in house lawyer who would help journalists fight with local and state and the federal government to get information. But most people do not have a clue what they're entitled to get until they encounter a problem in their community. And you know, the cliche is we're from the government, we're here to help you. Right. So people believe that and then they go to their city council or to their state health department or whatever it is, the education agency, and they say, I need some information about this. I'm puzzled by this, what's going on. And that's when they hit this information blockade. Even though they are entitled probably to get about 90% of what documents, data and other items the governments produce. But most people don't know that and they don't know how to push for it. And that's what really I wanted to see. The five people I profile in the book in five different communities, five different issues are all self taught. And they knew virtually nothing about this until they encountered a problem and then they think, oh, I'm gonna get this information. And often that was not the case.

A (7:46)

Yeah, it's surprising how difficult it is from your book. I mean, I think one of my big takeaways is that obstruction runs very deep and sometimes for no reason. But before we get to the no reason reason, let's talk about why there are secrets in general, I think secret for me personally from your book and also from, you know, following the news in general and the history of the United States. Most of the time, secrecy serves to cover up wrongdoing. But there are what I would call official reasons. You know, what are the official reasons that are often cited as motivation behind the secrecy?

B (8:22)

So there are exemptions to public disclosure. One of them can be a national security issue. For example, you don't want to provide a roadmap of what the inside of the electrical substation looks like. I mean, we know there have been terrorist attempts to undo our electric grid. So that's something that the government ought to keep secret for, you know, matter of community and national security personnel issues. At a certain point, for example, when a City council goes into a closed meeting, which they're supposed to announce in advance and explain why they're doing it, and that's to decide they're going to hire a new city manager and they're going over the terms of the contract, et cetera, or they're making a decision on who they're going to pick. That can be kept secret up to a point. Once the decision's made, that information should be made public. Criminal investigations that are in the middle of an investigation can be kept secret. So, for example, if you want the camera feedback that was used in a police stop, you might not be able to get it if it's being used in the course of an investigation. One of the problems with police agencies, though, is that they will say everything is an ongoing investigation for five, 10, whatever years. They're very reluctant. They don't like this stuff. You know, they're wearing those cameras reluctantly, a lot of them, not all of them. So those are the kinds of things that can be kept secret. Ultimately, they should become public. For example, if there's a competition to build a new public building and one company loses that competition, the public should be able to see some information about what they bid, and they should be able to see information, as should the public, about what the winner bid and why they won the contract. So it's sort of a progression. You know, obviously there are security, public safety issues that should be kept secret, and I'm not arguing with that at all.

A (10:29)

Right.

B (10:29)

But it can be abused, right?

A (10:31)

Well, one of the common reasons that you refer to repeatedly in the book, in addition to everything here, which is totally legit, is quote, unquote, trade secrets. Tell us a little bit more what trade secrets are supposed to mean.

B (10:45)

Yeah, this is a very tricky one because it is widely abused. As a federal judge quoted in my book points out, governments, really, since the Reagan era, have been outsourcing a lot of functions that they used to do. And when the government did the function, you know, whether it's running the school buses, running the trash trucks, whatever, when they did that function, they possessed the data and the information about how it was working, how often the trash was picked up, whatever it was that you might be looking for. And so the government owned the data, and the data should be made public, often upon request, although this is a whole nother issue about whether they should be posting stuff online, and they should be. And so what happens is the member of the public wants to know something about how some piece of data or some piece of information about how that Company is fulfilling the terms of its contract, how much it's paying the employees, who are not government employees, for example, but are fulfilling a government function. A lot of times the companies will say, no, you can't give that out. That's a trade secret, which is to say it's a proprietary piece of information that the company wants to keep secret. And the reason they give is that they say it will hurt their position in the marketplace with their competitors. The problem with trade secrets, and they are widely used both in commerce, in the criminal justice system, they're widely used in software systems that are used to set bail, allow people to get out on parole. The problem is that governments really are not in a position. They don't have the expertise to decide what's a trade secret and what isn't a trade secret. And so what happens is they basically defer to the private company. And as this federal judge, William Alsop in the Northern District of California, says in a case that I cite in the book, he says, you know, sometimes a lot of stuff these companies want to keep secret is, as he called it, routine blather. One example in the book that I cite is that a water company in West Virginia, in pushing back on a request for public information, made the 800 number for the state Public Utilities Commission. They blacked it out and said it was, you know, a trade secret. I mean, crazy stuff like this happens. That was also the case in a Los Angeles case about buses. You know, was the bus manufacturer paying the wages they said they were going to pay and provide the benefits they said they were going to pay? And when a public interest group wanted that information, the Los Angeles metro system actually was willing to give it out. But the company intervened and said, no, these are trade secrets. There was a court case over that. Ultimately, the company and the transit agency had to give out the information. And guess what? When it was analyzed by this public interest group called Jobs to Move America, they discovered that the company was not fulfilling the terms of the contract. Obviously, that's something the government should have been tracking but wasn't. So you need the people on the outside looking over the shoulder of governments. It's in everybody's interest, frankly. It's a cost benefit to society as a whole if we have more civic engagement that way.

A (14:12)

Right? What you just said, that the government should be keeping track. I thought that, you know, when I was reading your book, there are instances of the government just being bad actors or they're doing this where they outsource something. And then they were like, well, we're not doing it. So we're just going to wash hands and we're not even going to hold them accountable for doing the job on behalf of the people.

B (14:32)

Yeah.

A (14:37)

We'Ll be back with Miranda in just a moment, so don't go anywhere. You will want to hear this episode's Civic Spark. One small step we can all take to be more empowered and ignite collective change. But first, future hindsight has been coming to your headphones for eight years and we've certainly found our groove. But it wasn't always easy. When I first started, I had to figure it all out on my own. Episode recordings, guest bookings, editing audio, social media stuff, you name it. And when you're starting something new, every day seems to introduce another question that needs an answer right away. That's an overwhelming feeling, don't you think? It's like your to do list constantly grows and grows with new tasks and that list can pretty easily take over your life if you're not careful. So what you really need is the right tool that not only helps you out, but simplifies everything. Because that will be the game changer for millions of businesses out there. That tool is Shopify. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and and 10% of all e commerce in the US from household names like Aviator Nation and Cotopaxi to fresh brands that are just getting started. So if you want to get started, take the first step with your own design studio. With hundreds of ready to use templates, Shopify helps you build a beautiful online store to match your brand's style. Let's say you want to accelerate your content creation. No worries. Shopify is packed with helpful AI tools that write product descriptions, page headlines, and even enhance your product photography. With so many great tools at your fingertips, you can get the word out as if you have an entire marketing team behind you. In just a few quick minutes. You can easily create email and social media campaigns wherever your customers are scrolling or strolling. Shopify is your commerce expert with world class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns and beyond. So if you're ready to sell, you're ready for Shopify. No matter how big you want to grow, Shopify gives you everything you need to take control and take your business to the next level. And that's what I love about Shopify. Turn your big business idea into Cha Ching With Shopify on your side, sign up for your $1 per month trial period and start selling today at shopify.com hopeful go to shopify.com hopeful shopify.com hopeful.

B (17:26)

Cha Ching.

A (17:28)

We also want to tell you about another podcast we think you'll enjoy. If you're looking for another podcast to serve as a companion to future hindsight, you should listen to Fiasco Benghazi. On Fiasco, Leon Nayfak transports listeners to the day to day realities of our country's most pivotal historical events in the aim to shed light on the present by revisiting the forgotten twists and turns of the past. The newest season examines the 2012 attack in Libya that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, as well as the ensuing political storm which raised questions about America's role in the world and established a playbook to weaponize attention in the social media age. Listen to Fiasco Benghazi wherever you get podcasts and now let's return to my conversation with Miranda Spivak. So in your book, you write about five examples of citizen activism, and three of them are about the toxins poisoning our environment, which is to say that they're poisoning us. And in the context of the EPA announcing on September 12th a proposal to stop collecting and publishing annual greenhouse gas emissions data from various industrial facilities such as factories and power plants, which is of course based on the big beautiful bill that passed this summer to delay these requirements to report emissions until 2034. I think there will be more impunity in these coming years when it comes to environmental malfeasance. What's the common pattern of these wrongdoers when it comes to toxins, primarily in the instances that you recounted in Forever Chemicals?

B (19:21)

You know, that's really an interesting question. And I think that a lot of these corporations remind me of developers, which is to say they push everything up to the edge and beyond. And it's sort of do this and ask for forgiveness later. I covered a lot of development issues when I was at the Washington Post, and, you know, it was just in the culture to ignore the rules, shall we say? It's a nice way of putting it. And then, oh, they built something that was too tall or it's over the property line or whatever. Ah, we're really sorry. We'll pay a little penalty and that'll be the case. So in, for example, Uniontown, Alabama, which is one of the communities, I profile a historic black community that's fairly poor financially and has had a failing sewer system for 40 plus years. Some of the overusers of the sewer system, they're not necessarily polluting it, but they're discharging more than their permit says Are, you know, the local catfish company, which, the state environmental issue has documents that show that they're pushing out more wastewater than they should be according to their permit and has let that go for years. There's also a prison in town that people said shouldn't come in because the sewer system can't handle it, but did come in. And now they're also a big contributor to the excess use of the sewer system. The culture is now, I think, amplified, frankly, by the President of the United States. The rules don't apply to me. And I think that. That especially in smaller communities dependent on jobs, dependent on whatever they can get, nobody wants to go up against these corporations or the prison or whatever because, you know, it's part of the economic lifeblood of the community. And so coupled with lax oversight in state environmental issues, and that does vary state to state. Now, EPA is not only doing what you said about greenhouse gas, they're also easing up the restrictions on forever chemicals, the pfas, pfoa, et cetera. Some states will continue to push hard on that. I would expect California, for example, to see still push harder than the feds on environmental pollution. But other states, Alabama, which doesn't have a great record as it is a lot of the Southern states, some of the poorer Midwestern states, they're not going to do it. You know, first of all, they can't afford it. Secondly, these companies will threaten to leave. That's one of their big tools, one of their big hammers that they use. So it's very hard for states to go up against them. And I think that's part of the problem. And it's. I think what's happening with EPA is going to ripple across the country and it's going to depend on where you live. You know, we're back to a state by state system of democracy here.

A (22:27)

Well, one of the things about Uniontown in Alabama is that to add insult to injury is that the federal dollars allocated to mitigate the problem with the overflowing sewer system, or overtaxed sewer system, however you want to describe it, basically was not used to mitigate the problem, but the dollars continue to get misused. And so I was just thinking, how does this cycle continue to perpetuate itself in this way? And in your research, what was your conclusion? What's your analysis of how this just keeps going?

B (23:03)

Well, I think in Uniontown there is a core of community accidental activists, which is the term I use, because nobody signs up for this work. It's like having a second job to try to Keep track of whatever the problem is in your community. So I think part of it is that there is this concern about jobs going away and it's a very effective threat. That was true also in Hoosick Falls, New York, which has a forever chemical problem in the drinking water. And the corporations that actually now have settled and are paying out some substantial amounts of money to help the community get medical testing and other benefits. You know, there was always this sort of suggestion that maybe they were just going to close their factories and leave. That's also, I think, a problem in Uniontown. So I think that culturally it's very hard to fight. People are not really trained to do this. And then for example, in Alabama, the state environmental. And it's called this Department of Environmental Management, but a lot of people call it the Department of Environmental Mismanagement. A lot of people think they're not tough enough on polluters, and it's a big problem. Yeah.

A (24:22)

It feels to me that there is this impression that you cannot serve the public interest on the pollution side, on the health and safety side, without a compromise on having jobs. But I, I mean, I would argue that you can do both, that those things are not mutually exclusive to each other.

B (24:41)

Right, right. No, I think it's a. A fear tactic, unfortunately. I think it's effective. It's very hard, especially in communities that are not affluent, to fight. I mean, if you watch, and I have covered all kinds of communities in my career, but you look at more affluent communities and what they're able to do, usually it's because they can hire private lawyers and pay for it. Makes a big difference.

A (25:06)

Yeah. Well, before we turn to the how to, I wanted to go over this last example in your book about algorithms being used in sentencing or in denying parole, which is really an example of garbage in, garbage out that we have heard so much about as a danger in relying on data for decision making. And in the age of ICE raids and attacks on due process, but also the rise of AI at the same time. How do you think about transparency? What would more transparency do for us? Because transparency alone is not actually going to solve the problem.

B (25:47)

Well, as I said at the outset, all the state laws are pretty good. It's all in the enforcement or lack of enforcement in the case of the algorithms and software used in the criminal justice system. Let me just recount the story briefly, if I may. So Glenn Rodriguez was 16, was an accessory to a murder, may not have really known that that was what was going to happen. But anyway, he goes away to prison for 24 years. But in his final 10 years in prison, he establishes really a stellar record. He is a model prisoner. He's getting training, he's getting education. He's not getting in trouble in prison. And if you know anything about prison, it's very hard to have a stellar record for 10 years. And it isn't necessarily because you're behaving badly, but other people are. And so you either get caught, you get attacked, you have to defend yourself. There's, you know, the whole culture of prison is complicated. So Glenn gets recommended for early release just by six months. And he goes up before the parole board, this is in New York State, and he is turned down for early release. And it just doesn't make sense because he was recommended for early release based on having a good record. And the parole board doesn't understand how the software is working. They don't know what's in the black box that goes into creating the software. Glenn goes back to prison, and he starts to interview his fellow prisoners, which he's not supposed to do, but he does. So he's taking a risk there. And he finds out that their scores on this algorithm in some cases were better than his, even though he knew, and they knew that their records in prison were worse than his. So something's amiss here. He figures out, finally, that the counselors who are putting in the data in his case, they went back, answered the question of, does this person have any blots on their record? And I'm paraphrasing here. In his case, they went back through his full time in prison. In the case of most other people, other Counselors went back 24 months, which is what they were supposed to do. And so he realizes that he can never get the right score because of the way this was handled. And of course, his fellow prisoners, people are saying, if this guy can't get out early, nobody's getting out early because they knew he had a great record. So he tries to get the information on how the system, the software, works, and of course, the company turns him down and says it's a trade secret. And he goes back six months later, and he still has a bad score, and nobody's fixed the problem. And he does get out on time, not early. So these kinds of systems are being used to set bail. So, for example, if they think you're coming from a bad neighborhood, even if you have a good record, you could be denied bail or the bail could be very high, because letting you out, they think you might commit another crime, even though you may not. There's a lot of ways these systems are used. Nobody understands them. The people who are applying them, judges, bailiffs, whatever, they don't understand them. Everybody's accepting this outside system or systems. There are a couple of them in the country that are setting the standard for criminal justice, and nobody really gets how it's being used, and they can't penetrate the system. It's just outrageous.

A (29:26)

Yeah.

B (29:26)

And Glenn is a wonderful guy. He works for a nonprofit that helps returning citizens, people getting out of prison. You know, he's been out for several years now, but the story still burns.

A (29:39)

Oh, yeah, but. And it's not the only instance. Right. Like, we know that this story is being repeated all over.

B (29:45)

Yeah, he got an audience for his story, not just in my book. Some law professor wrote a law review article about him, which is actually how I found out about him. But you're right, it's going on all over the place.

A (29:57)

Right. Well, let's talk about the how to. The legal, political, social things that we could be doing. The people in your book are what you call accidental activists. That's what you said just now, which is to that they're everyday people whose day job is something else. But they were incensed by an injustice and took action. So actually, I think this is a good reminder that we all have agency, that we can all do something, which is not to say we can do everything. So what are the main ingredients to successful activism when it comes to this kind of thing?

B (30:29)

So all the people in the book, and as I think I've mentioned, the issues now, dangerous roads, secret algorithms, poison drinking water, failing sewers. And the fifth one is toxins in firefighter protective gear, which is also forever chemicals. So there are two forever chemicals issues in the book. So what happens to these people is, as I said at the outset, they're a little bit naive. I think they're going to go get help from their government, and then they hit what I'm calling the information blockade, some kind of obstruction. So first of all, their sense of, you know, this is unjust. I'm just, you know, Joe Schmo taxpayer, and I can't get help. Why not? And they get angry, I have to say, but they are able to channel their anger. And this is actually a piece of advice at the end of the book, which is, no matter how angry you are, when you go talk about this with the public or with the government, you cannot show how angry you are. And that's very hard for people because they get very frustrated anyway. They get angry, they start to do research. I mean, Diane Cotter, who's the person who discovered forever chemicals in fire freight or protective gear that may well be contributing to the already high rate of cancer in the fire service. You know, there are many reasons for that, but one of them may be that the gear that's supposed to be protecting them is actually poisoning them. So she was high school graduate, hairdresser, phenomenal user of the Internet, totally educated herself, learned to read scientific papers. Just incredible discipline and investigative skills that she didn't know she had. So obviously you need to find out what the problem really is. Have other places in the country encountered that? Yes, I mean, failing sewer system, Surely there are other communities that have encountered that so need to do a lot of research. You need to line up your neighbors and alert them and try to enlist them not only in sharing the research, but also signing petitions, politicians, you know, if it's you, one or two or three people come to the city council and say, we have this problem, you know, maybe they'll pay attention, maybe they won't. If you come in with a petition of 50 people who say, we got a big problem in our neighborhood, the sewers are overflowing, Nobody's doing anything about it. It's urgent. They will listen to numbers. So there is strength in numbers. And you need to build those coalitions, interestingly enough to me, because we're all in this high tech era of social media. Most of the people in my book, and they are over 50, probably use Facebook as a very effective organizing tool and a research tool. I mean, Diane contacted firefighters all over the country. She kept posting over and over and over about her findings, and finally some of them responded. And she has actually spearheaded a nationwide move to improve the content and the quality of firefighter protective gear. Who knew? So I think becoming very well informed, enlisting neighbors not only in sharing the work, but also signing petitions, learning how to lobby your local government, your state government, that you can show up at the legislature, you can show up at the city council meeting. They do need to listen to you, even if they ignore you. Looking for people around the country who may have experienced what you experience and are way ahead of you in learning how to solve it. And so you can learn from their experiences, channeling your anger, being very careful about how you express yourself, because they will just turn off public officials. They will go, oh, God, here's that guy again. You know, he's that nutcase from down the street. Even though that nutcase knows what he's talking about, so there are those things. If it's an environmental issue, there are still a lot of environmental nonprofits out there who have done a lot of research. They know a lot about these issues and can be helpful to you. And if there are other issues, you can often find nonprofits still that are working on those issues. If it's a school issue, if it's a book banning issue, if it's whatever. So you really have to network as much as you can. You have to be patient. This stuff takes a long time. Solving the Hoosick falls water problem, 10 years, you know, including being ignored for quite a while by the government. So you have to be patient, you have to be tenacious. And it is a second job. That's the kind of tragedy of it. But if you can get people on your side and share the work, that makes a big difference. Of course. I mean, we know a lot of these people are in news deserts, but media attention is very helpful. Public shaming can be very helpful. And neighborhood listservs, any way you can get the word out, you know, we'll see what happens to all these NPR stations around the country. But in a lot of these communities, that's what there is. So radio listservs, all of that, and then just keep pushing, ah, legal advice, too. You can get free legal advice. Most state bar associations have either a requirement or a strong suggestion that lawyers who may be defending the corporations do pro bono work, free work. And so you can get in touch with them, the American Civil Liberties Union can be helpful. There are environmental lawyers and environmental groups out there that can be helpful. And, you know, sometimes you do need a lawyer, sad to say.

A (36:07)

Yeah. Well, speaking of lawyers, though, perversely, the highest court of the land appears to endorse secrecy more and make it the norm. Tell us a little bit about the role of the Supreme Court in making this problem worse, basically.

B (36:22)

Absolutely. So in 2013, and that was a different court, unfortunately, but the Supreme Court ruled in a Virginia case that Virginia only had to give out public records, public information to citizens of Virginia citizens, not even residents citizens. And, you know, residents pay taxes too, by the way. So that was kind of a shocking ruling. And there are a number of states, Alabama's one of them. Because I encountered that problem, I had to go get a proxy, somebody who lived in Alabama to go get public records. For me, there are about 15 states that will not give out public information to anybody who's not a citizen of that state. Thank you, Supreme Court. And I gotta tell you, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was on that court and voted for that. So that was disturbing. Subsequently, the Supreme Court made it much easier for corporations to insist on keeping trade secrets. I won't go through all the intricacies of that ruling except to say that it's even harder now to force a private company working, doing some kind of government function to give up what they say are trade secrets. So that got worse. There's another case in California. The names of donors to nonprofits were supposed to be given to the government to help oversight of charitable organizations. And the Supreme Court struck that one down. Now we know this is a Supreme Court that has trended rightward and I guess secrecy. Although I have to say some of the people in Alabama who were keeping secrets were Democrats. And it can be nonpartisan. The secret keepers can be from any political persuasion. But this Supreme Court is definitely moving towards allowing greater secrecy. And you know, it's not to anybody's benefit, in my opinion.

A (38:18)

Yes, as the Washington Post likes to say, democracy dies in darkness. Well, every week on future Hindsight, I ask my guest to share a civic spark. One small step we can all take to be more empowered and ignite collective change. So what's a good way to turn the insights that you've shared with us into action? What are some basic, simple things everyday citizens can do to demand transparency on a regular basis?

B (38:47)

Well, I would start with a very simple thing, which is look up the agendas of your city council and your school board. They hold public meetings in which they discuss these agendas. So if you see something there that concerns you, show up. They have public comment sections, time for public comments. They'll often wait till the very end, which could be midnight. So you have to sort of scope this out a little bit. But look at the agendas. And if like the Uniontown Alabama Water board, they're not posting the agendas anywhere, check your state law, because most states require advance agendas to be posted. So that's a start for what is my government doing and maybe I need to interact with it. Simple. But a lot of people don't show up at these local government meetings or when they do show up, they're furious about something. But learn how it works.

A (39:47)

Yes, that's very good advice. Learn how it works and show up. Because actually, as you said, there are people who show up and are very upset. But it's almost always the same people who show up who then the elected official doesn't take seriously. But if you're interested and you're a different person, I can assure you the elected official is like, who is this shiny new unicorn? And what is that unicorn saying? So, last question, looking into the future, what makes you hopeful?

B (40:18)

Well, I think that what is happening, and it's partly because the Trump administration is eviscerating the federal bureaucracy. And so a lot of pressure is going to fall on the states for health care, for child care, education, a lot of things that we have seen the federal government take charge of. And never mind foreign aid, that's a whole nother can of worms. But in terms of things that people can actually have an impact on. So if you're concerned about education, if you're concerned about funding your libraries, if you're concerned about vaccine policies in your state, start to learn about how your state and local government, as I said, are making decisions, pick out some issues, become really educated about them. And I think people are starting to do this. I think they're starting, this is the optimism part. I think they are starting to understand that where they can make a difference right now is at the state and local level and they're starting to step up. It's a long process. There's not a lot of time till the 2026 elections, but this is the time Medicaid money is being cut. So how's the state going to provide healthcare? What are they going to do? Are they going to support hospitals? Because the emergency rooms are going to fill up. Find out and try to help influence the decision making process. And I think people are is where I'm cautiously optimistic.

A (41:50)

Yeah, here, here. I agree. I totally agree with you. So thank you so much, Miranda, for joining me on Future Hindsight. It was really a pleasure to have you on the show.

B (42:00)

Oh, well, I really enjoyed it and I think what you're doing with this podcast is so important right now. So thank you.

A (42:06)

Thank you. Miranda S. Spivak is the author of Backroom Deals in Our How Government Secrecy Harms Our Communities and the Local Heroes Fighting Back. Remember, civic action doesn't have to be complicated. It's about small steps that spark progress, like sharing this episode with a friend. Let's recap this week's civic spark and fire up our collective power. If you want to fight for transparency, start simple. Look up the agendas of your city council and your school board. And if something sticks out to you, show up at a meeting, because transparency is just the first step. Next week on Future Hindsight, we're joined by Hilary Brazeth. She's the executive director of Open Secrets, the nation's premier research group tracking money in US politics and its effect on elections and public policy.

B (43:06)

It's really important to actually examine what we mean by corruption and look at the data to understand does this mean undue influence or is this a natural part of the political process?

A (43:20)

That's next time on Future Hindsight. Be sure to follow us on your podcast app so you'll never miss an episode. We know you want to build your civic action toolkit, so follow Future Hindsight now and we'll come right to you every week. And if you want to to support Future Hindsight and all the work we do as an independent pro democracy podcast, subscribe to our YouTube channel. It's easy and free and honestly worth it. Head to YouTube.com futurehinsight now to join. Thanks for tuning in and until next time, see clearly, act boldly and spark the change you want to see. This episode was produced by Zach Travis and me.

B (44:08)

This podcast is part of the Democracy Group.