As a general rule, to have standing, one must generally have a personal stake in the subject matter of the lawsuit, i.e., one must be a real party in interest. Glaze v. Grooms, 324 S.C. 249, 478 S.E.2d 841 (1996). Additionally, a private person may not invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action unless he has sustained, or is in immediate danger of sustaining, prejudice therefrom. Blandon v. Coleman, 285 S.C. 472, 330 S.E.2d 298 (1985). We have held standing may be conferred upon a party when an issue is of such public importance as to require its resolution for future guidance. Baird v. Charleston County, 333 S.C. 519, 511 S.E.2d 69 (1999) (citing Thompson v. South Carolina Comm’n on Alcohol & Drug Abuse, 267 S.C. 463, 229 S.E.2d 718 (1976) (<HOLDING>)). Appellants attempt to distinguish Baird by
holding that law enforcement agents internal reports of misconduct by fellow officers involved matters of public concern and contrasting such speech with employees complaints in tang recognizing that plaintiffs had standing to allege infringements of their first amendment rights where the record established that they had been threatened with enforcement of the statute and that such enforcement would cause them injury holding that the absence of a motivating desire to address a matter of public concern was not dispositive as to whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern holding that the plaintiffs had standing because the questions involved were of such wide concern both to law enforcement personnel and to the public holding that alleged misconduct by public officials particularly by law enforcement officials is matter of public concern