Politics & Power Quote by Mark Foley

The sentence performs a familiar political two-step: distance from the private sector while borrowing its language of “deals” and due diligence. Foley opens by stating an obvious-seeming distinction - government isn’t a company - but that setup isn’t about civics. It’s a preemptive defense against the charge that public officials are meddling in “the market.” By conceding the point up front, he claims the posture of the reasonable adult in the room: we’re not trying to run your business, we’re trying to protect the public’s.

“Transparency” is the key word, because it’s both a principle and a weapon. It frames oversight as morally clean and procedurally neutral, even when it’s politically loaded. No one argues against transparency, which is why it’s such an effective cudgel: demanding more information delays momentum, invites scrutiny, and signals skepticism without having to allege wrongdoing outright. It’s governance as subpoena-adjacent rhetoric.

The subtext of “determine if the deal should go forward” is quieter but sharper. It asserts veto power while pretending not to. Foley isn’t merely asking for facts; he’s staking out the government’s right to referee - and possibly stop - a transaction that has already been narrated elsewhere as business-as-usual. In the post-Enron, post-corporate scandal era that shaped a lot of early-2000s political speech, this kind of line sells caution as competence. It reassures voters that someone is watching the fine print, while leaving plenty of room for the speaker to later claim either outcome as responsible.