Political surplus of whistleblowing: a case study Abraham Mansbach n Introduction Whistleblowing is the public disclosure by a per- son working within an organization of acts, omissions, practices or policies by that organiza- tion that wrong or harm a third party. The intention of the disclosure is to gain the attention of the public or of the authorities in order to bring the wrongdoing to an end and to prevent further such misbehavior (James 1980, Hunt 1998). Whistleblowing first came to public attention in the 1960s and interest in it has grown steadily since the 1970s. Initially of interest primarily to journalists, it became over time a matter of interest to both researchers and the general public. The importance of whistleblowing to the public lies in the far-reaching consequences it can produce in the occupational, social and political spheres. Exposing the professional negligence of a lawyer, accountant, engineer or doctor can pre- vent harm and even save lives. The public also benefits when the health-endangering acts of a private or public company – polluting air or water sources, for example – are brought to light. Disclosing fraud in corporations and the corrup- tion of civil servants or politicians can stem huge losses of public money and increase the integrity of business and political cultures. As a topic for research, whistleblowing arouses keen interest in several fields. For moral philoso- phers, the need for whistleblowers to choose be- tween the public good and multiple loyalties – to their company, colleagues and employer – raises ethical dilemmas involving moral obligations (e.g. Bok 1983, Elliston 1985, Alford 2001), moral justification (e.g. De George 1981, James 1984) and moral judgment (e.g. Brabeck 1984). As whistleblowers are often fired for their pains, legal scholars have debated in extenso the ques- tions of employee rights and the essential nature of a labor agreement (e.g. Lindauer 1975, Fox 1993, Morehead & Near 1997, Ilan 2003). Whistleblowing has also been discussed as an ethical dilemma in the context of specific profes- sions and areas of professional responsibility, especially the areas of internal audit (e.g. Vinten 1992, Barlas 1993), environmental protection (e.g. Matley et al. 1987, Blumenfeld 1989), engineering (e.g. Hoffman 1984, Pletta 1986), law and policing (e.g. Rosecrance 1988, Westman 1991, Kleinig 1996), management (e.g. Brief & Motowidlo 1986, Barnett 1992), public health (e.g. Fidell 1988, Lennane 1993), public administration (e.g. Baran 1979, Jos 1991), social work (Mansbach & Kauf- man 2003, Greene & Kantambu 2004) and the army (Ellis & Arieli 1999). Whistleblowing has another dimension, how- ever, which has been almost totally ignored. This is its political dimension. This dimension is per- haps most apparent in whistleblowing aimed at political-governmental institutions and/or figures. One notable example is the exposure by Mark Felt, the famous ‘Deep Throat’, of criminal acts by members of Richard Nixon’s election team in what became known as the Watergate affair, and which forced Nixon to resign from his presidency. Another example is the disclosure by David Kelly, a biological warfare expert in the British Ministry of Defence and a former weapons n Senior Lecturer, Philosophy Department, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel. r 2007 The Authors Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA 124 Business Ethics: A European Review Volume 16 Number 2 April 2007