This past week, a milestone might have occurred for those concerned with public accountability and transparency of government, and a free press.
The Texas House passed HB 670, known as the Free Flow of Information Act, also known as a Shield Law.
Now the state Senate version of the bill, or if this bill is substituted for the Senate’s version, must be ratified and then sent to the governor’s desk for his signature.
But to declare victory for this good government bill at this stage of the game would be premature.
In the 2007 session, both the state Senate and House approved a similar bill, but state Rep. Debbie Riddle, a Republican from Tomball, killed the bill through a “point of order,” despite the overwhelming support of both the House and Senate.
Rep. Riddle brought up a procedural issue that occurred in committee that forced the bill to go back through the legislative process. By waiting until the end of the session to raise her procedural objection, she effectively killed the bill. (What does that piece of political chicanery say about Rep. Riddle’s respect, or lack thereof, for rule of the majority that is so fundamental to our representative-form of government?)
This past Wednesday, before HB 670 came to a vote, Rep. Riddle told her fellow House members that the bill would provide journalists with more power than the Pope.
As I sat in the House gallery to watch the bill’s progress, I did not know whether to laugh or be angry at her ludicrous comments. Negotiations between district attorneys and First Amendment lawyers and press representatives had resulted in a bill that both prosecutors and journalists supported. I wondered whether she had even read the bill or knew how much work had been invested in reaching a consensus.
The bill simply provides a guideline for when journalists can protect the identity of sources or information. If a journalist witnesses a crime or has information about a crime that investigators cannot obtain from any other source, then a judge can order that the source be identified or information turned over to prosecutors or investigators. It is not an absolute privilege. This protection is needed (Shield laws already exist in 36 states and the District of Columbia) because some whistleblowers will not come forward about government corruption, ineptness or waste unless they know their identity will be protected. The bill would protect sources when immediate public safety is not an overwhelming consideration and prevents prosecutors and lawyers from using the press to do their work, ensuring that the press can operate freely from government intervention as the First Amendment intended.
Apparently only one other House member believed Rep. Riddle’s ridiculous diatribe. The second reading of the bill passed 146-2, with Riddle and freshman Republican Randy Weber of Pearland voting against the bill.
On Thursday, the third and final vote on the bill was unanimous among those casting votes. Both Riddle and Weber switched their votes to yea votes. Why? One might assume because the third vote is the only officially recorded vote and now she can say she voted for the bill and she has proof, even though she pulled a procedural trick to kill the bill in 2007 and argued and voted against the bill before the third reading in 2009.
Politics! For some in government, it’s not about what you do, but what you can get away with that matters.
And that’s just one of the many reasons Texas needs a Shield Law to protect the confidential sources of professional journalists.
