Shields up

How will the Northwest’s federal lawmakers vote on protecting reporters’ notes?

1 Comments

Tags:

In Oregon and Washington, reporters have robust legal protections for their sources’ confidentiality along with the privacy of their notes and conversations, published or otherwise.
In Idaho, reporters got nothin’.
While Oregon is in the majority with 32 other states that give protective shields to reporters from judicial subpoenas, many in Congress want the protection to be a federal one covering all 50 states. So last week, in what’s becoming an annual rite, U.S. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) introduced the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, which would offer some protections to journalists and their sources.
Among the six House co-sponsors of HR 2102 is Oregon’s own Rep. Greg Walden (R-Hood River), who says “coercing reporters to divulge their sources through the courts has a chilling effect on whistle-blowing and investigative reporting.... We in Congress must do everything in our power to protect the freedoms of journalistic institutions.”
Agreed. But given that similar bills were introduced in 2005 and 2006 but never made it to a floor vote, we wondered how the congressional delegation from Oregon and southwest Washington would vote.

Comments from the legislators

05.13.2007 at 02:04 Reply

Jo McIntyre

In this week's Portland Business Journal is an article that should make every reporter's blood run cold:

Less disclosure may equal more investment

Portland Business Journal - May 11, 2007by Andy GiegerichBusiness Journal staff writer

As private equity continues to become a hot investment tool, more public officials hope to attract the industry's obsessively secretive investors.

Randall Edwards, Oregon's state treasurer, acknowledged as much in backing Senate Bill 64, which would make records of certain investments issued by Edwards, the Oregon Growth Account Board and the Oregon Investment Council exempt from disclosure under public records law.

The Oregon Investment Council oversees the $62 billion worth of assets managed by the Oregon Public Employees Retirement System.

The bill would make private equity investors more amenable to investing in the state because they'll theoretically feel their information is better protected. SB 64 captured unanimous support in passing the House Revenue Committee.

Private equity investors pour money into assets, such as distressed companies or for mergers or acquisitions, that typically aren't traded publicly. The money comes from private markets.

Private equity funded an estimated two-thirds of all buyouts in 2005, up from 20 percent in 2000. Private equity, also used to fund startup companies, comprises as much as 15 percent of high-end investors' portfolios, up from about 5 percent in 1987.

But some private equity investors worry that investing in state funds will require them to reveal trade secrets and proprietary strategies. State investment officials collect such tidbits as they perform due diligence before issuing public money.

"We've run into funds that will not take public money," Edwards said. "We'd seen that in other states too, where people couldn't invest in funds if they wanted to because of disclosure issues. Given that private equity investors are throwing money around out there, the business mind-set is that we need to make a change."

The Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association, which follows open records issues, has not taken a position on the matter, said Executive Director LeRoy Yorgason.

Find the rest of the story at:

http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2007/05/14/story5.html

Sam Adams is on Yelp

Doctor Groups Flex Muscle In Capitol: $2.3 Million in Campaign Cash to Influence Health-Care Reform

Nonsense Knows No State Boundary: Washington Legislators Get Bogus Job Claims on CRC

Occupy Arrestees Win Their Right to Full Trials—Even Though They May Not Need It

Shields up

How will the Northwest’s federal lawmakers vote on protecting reporters’ notes?