Whistleblowing Legislation

In the past few years, there has been a push for a new piece of legislation, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. What this proposed bill would essentially do would be to ease up on the restrictions on federal whistleblowing, most importantly implementing that federal whistleblowers would get the right to trial by jury. However, in the bill's most recent push through the House of Representatives didn't go as intended. In a blog written by Richard Renner, a lawyer who was worked for more than 27 years advocating for whistleblower rights, he wrote that the amendments to the bill made by the House would, "Cut out the right to a jury trial for federal employees". The amendments also backfired on another platform where it now would empower the board that reviews whistleblower cases, the Merit Systems Protection Board, to be able to summarily dismiss whistleblower cases. The government also would be able to view the cases in the special court system that has been notorious for being unfair to whistelblowers, with a track record of 3 successful appeals out of 210 (taken from Tom Devine's Interview with On the Media). It seems that the advancements that are trying to be made in this ordeal seem to backfire, and no progress is being made. The government seems very content with the system to censor federal employees and does not want to change it by the constant refusals to pass any amending bills. Why? If national security was the sole issue, by at least giving whistleblowers the right to trial by jury, these decisions could be made case by case if the whistleblower was at fault for releasing the information. Simple amendments like that could be made so the government could show whistleblower advocates that they are trying to find a fair middle ground, but the government refuses to cooperate. What changes could be made so both sides are happy? Is there no middle ground, just protection or no protection at all?