Daily Herald — Shield law no risk to nation's security

• By: ASNE staff
• On: 08/14/2008 11:01:45
• In: Shield law editorials

Daily Herald, Arlington Heights, Ill.
August 13, 2008

Earlier this summer, we wrote in this space about our optimism about prospects for a federal law that would strengthen the protections for relationships between journalists and their confidential sources.

By a wide margin, the U.S. House had passed the Free Flow of Information Act co-sponsored by Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Evanston, with the support of each member of the suburban delegation, from both sides of the aisle.

The U.S. Senate version of the bill had been passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 15-4 vote, and it had been endorsed by both major party presidential candidates, senators Barack Obama of Illinois and John McCain of Arizona.

Importantly, the attorney generals in 41 states, including Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, had signed a letter by the National Association of Attorneys General endorsing the legislation. In that letter, they argued the protection would not undermine the criminal justice system and that the legislation is needed because existing federal law “frustrates the purposes of the state-recognized privileges and undercuts the benefit to the public that the states have sought to bestow.”

Unfortunately, opponents to a free flow of information as the public's fundamental right in a democracy have used national security and the fight over energy policy to block the advent of this protection.

Recently, on a 51-43 vote along partisan lines, the bill sponsored by Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana fell nine votes short of the 60 it would have needed to move forward. We were happy to see that Sen. Richard Durbin voted in favor of this legislation, disappointed to see Sen. Barack Obama was a no-show as he has been so repeatedly during his presidential campaign.

For the most part, Republicans voted against the bill, arguing that it is more urgent to carve out a solution to the nation's energy challenges than it is to protect reporters from having to reveal their sources.

We're sorry to see the two issues muddled up together since they are, when it comes down to it, unrelated, but so be it. Politics works that way sometimes.

We're more disturbed by the campaign being waged beneath the surface by the Bush administration and many other Republicans that the bill would somehow damage national security by making it more difficult for prosecutors to track leaks.

That's simply untrue. The measure has specific exemptions for information related to anti-terrorism cases and for information that could stop a murder or kidnapping.

This is a good bill that is central to the public's right to know.

The bill is not dead yet. It's apt to come up again when Congress reconvenes in September. We hope it does. And we hope both sides come to recognize the great need for the measure and the great value it offers the republic.