Webb: It's the news media vs. the Legislature, a very interesting clash of values. The news media have the bully pulpit, the ability to communicate their positions widely, but the Legislature gets to make laws. Both kinds of power are a little intoxicating. The news media are taking this issue seriously enough that they have hired a lobbying firm (you guessed it, Pignanelli and partner, Doug Foxley), to help them win the day.

The sponsors of the legislation in question, Rep. Douglas Aagard, and Sen. David Thomas, make some valid points, noting that two constitutional rights are in conflict here, the right of public access to government information, and the right of privacy in relation to personal data gathered by government.

For example, if you write a letter to a government official about some personal matter, should the news media have access to that letter? Should the state subsidize the cost of compiling databases for private businesses that use the information for mailings lists? Should a legislator be able to have e-mail strategy discussions with staff without those communications being made public? These aren't easy issues, but legislators aren't just trying to close access to government records. They are also trying to protect the privacy of all of us whose personal information is found in numerous government databases.

Pignanelli: Aagard and Thomas offer a sincere and legitimate policy consideration that communications between an elected official and a constituent should be confidential. However, the right of such privacy does not trump the right of the people to scrutinize the actions of their elected officials. Although most of the discussions at the Capitol focus on e-mail, this legislation has the real potential to prohibit access to all communications anyone has with any elected official. Obviously, responsible media outlets support restricting invasion of an individual's personal privacy in such official interactions. But there are a number of persons who contact their elected officials for propriety reasons (i.e. developers concerned with zoning issues, lobbyists advocating for clients), and the public needs to be aware of these activities. Truly private discussions can be protected under current law. There is no American practice of secrecy in communications between government officials and individuals; in fact our cherished tradition is the opposite.

Why is there so much whining about parking at the Capitol?