The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote today on whether a proposed shield law that lets journalists protect the identity of sources who provide information on sensitive matters should go before the entire Senate for a vote. The House already has approved the measure.

Most states have some shield law that allows a journalist to protect the identity of an anonymous source. The proposed Free Flow of Information Act, which has a provision for judicial review if national security issues are raised, looked like a shoo-in to make it out of committee until President Barack Obama, who'd publicly supported such a measure during his election campaign, met with some of his Cabinet and then sent word he wants changes that effectively put the administration in charge of determining what the public has a right to know.

The bill, as written, requires prosecutors to use the many other methods available to identify sources before demanding that reporters reveal them.

In explaining the importance of such a law, Society of Professional Journalists President Kevin Smith writes, "In this age of Enron, BALCO and Walter Reed Army Medical Center, it is critical that people who have information vital to the public get some protection to share their stories. Without this law, many may not come forward. When that happens, we all suffer."

Given that the bill contains a provision for review by an impartial judge if the issue of national security is involved, it's disingenuous to claim the change of heart is all about keeping the public safe. A cynic might question whether it might not be about protecting the administration from criticism. And I'm feeling pretty cynical right now, after watching how much new power has been claimed by this administration, which seems to want to directly run so many things.

So much for the checks and balances that the Founding Fathers so carefully placed in the government they crafted.

Critics of the shield law say reporters shouldn't be allowed to decide if national security secrets should be revealed. But should the administration be able to cry "national security" whenever it wants? That impartial judicial review seems like a very good way to settle it, case by case, and protect the public interest.

Journalists live here, raise families here, have parents and loved ones here, too. We all want to keep America safe. I care passionately about national security, and so do the impartial judges who, under the proposed bill, would be asked to look at instances where sensitive information bumps up against the public's right to know.