Here are some of the most important stories we’re following from the U.S. and around the world. If you enjoy reading this newsletter, please forward it to friends and family. If someone has forwarded you this newsletter, please subscribe here.

Public records laws are vital to transparency and democracy. That's why we're deeply disturbed by a number of tactics government agencies have recently employed to circumvent their obligations.

This new wave of anti-transparency measures seems bolder than past practices of, for example, abusing exemptions to open records laws or delaying responses to requests until the records lose their newsworthiness. 

Our blog highlighted examples ranging from state lawmakers proclaiming themselves exempt from open records requirements to military courts ignoring the law to avoid transparency during court martials to state and federal legislatures obstructing media access to their legislative chambers. And we previously wrote about the new federal law that allows judges to scrub potential ethical violations from the internet.

These innovative anti-transparency efforts don’t mean that officials have given up on tried and true avoidance tactics like price gouging. A Nebraska environmental agency, for example, wants to bill the Flatwater Free Press $44,000 to comply with a records request. Thankfully, the Free Press is suing, but litigation likely means more delay.

SLAPPs target discussion of campaign contributions

Wealthy campaign financiers love the First Amendment when they’re looking to avoid regulation but not so much when they get criticized. 

Billionaire Kelcy Warren is suing former Congressman Beto O’Rourke over comments connecting Warren’s $1 million donation to Gov. Greg Abbot to legislation allowing gas companies like Warren’s to opt out of weatherization requirements. His case may end up in front of Texas Supreme Court justices whose campaigns Warren also backed.

We explained to The Lever that “the press and public are entitled to discuss the functioning of the judiciary” and the potential conflicts among the justices “only underscore the need for people to be able to speak freely about campaign contributions,” which Warren’s lawsuit, if successful, would undermine.  

Reporter’s privilege needs consistency

Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) advocacy director Seth Stern co-wrote an article for American Bar Association magazine The Brief about the patchwork of reporter’s privilege laws and court decisions around the country and the resulting confusion and inconsistency. 

The article discusses the differing outcomes of journalist subpoenas in R. Kelly’s various criminal trials to illustrate the unpredictability journalists and their sources face, especially when reporting on stories of national significance. They can’t anticipate where someone might compel them to testify and what law might apply.

The article explains that the PRESS Act would resolve the problem altogether in the federal courts and provide helpful guidance to state judges, especially in smaller states where court precedents are limited. 

What we’re reading