A remarkable demonstration of bipartisan congressional support for greater transparency in government.
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent reversal of longstanding precedent construing the federal "trade secrets" exemption in the Freedom of Information Act, senior senators on both sides of the aisle introduced a bill — the "Open and Responsive Government Act of 2019" — to restore the required showing of "substantial harm" from disclosure of commercial information in the hands of federal agencies.
The bill's co-sponsors are Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas), Dianne Feinstein (D-California), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont).
Responding to the damage done to the federal Freedom of Information Act by the Supreme Court's opinion in Food Marketing Institute v Argus Leader Media, Senator Cornyn issued a statement declaring, "The Freedom of Information Act is a cornerstone of our country's belief in open and transparent government. As court rulings are released and case law changes, updates like this must be made to FOIA to improve compliance and ensure Americans can continue to hold those who represent them accountable."
Without regard to political affiliation or alignment, personal agendas or outside influences, these lawmakers were guided by the knowledge that free an open examination of public records is in the public interest.
In an era of increasing reliance on "privatization, contracted services, and technology companies to handle everything from detention centers to social services to surveillance capabilities to military systems," the Court's ruling —which vests full discretion in the private entities to determine what is confidential and therefore should not be made public — will have devastating consequences for the public's right to know under FOIA if the bill fails.
The greatest current threat to *Kentucky's open records law* comes from agencies that exhibit a "systematic and categorical disregard for the rule of law," treating it as "an ideal or suggestion," and lawmakers who yield to the entreaties of self-serving interests — that operate in government's shadows — to sponsor bills placing greater legislative restriction on the public's rights under Kentucky's open records laws.
Kentucky's lawmakers should instead follow the example of their federal counterparts by preserving Kentucky's existing "trade secrets" exemption (which strikes a reasonable balance between the public and private interests implicated), repudiating ANY attempt to expand that exemption and create opportunities for greater secrecy, and working in a bipartisan manner in support of the rights guaranteed by our open records laws.
