An extremely old saying goes, "There are two things you don't want to see being made - sausage and legislation." Neither is terribly appetizing to watch.
Journalists and all champions of a free flow of information certainly got a bitter taste of the process Wednesday when a federal shield law was blocked by a fight over an energy bill. Yes, you read that right.
The shield law would protect journalists from having to reveal their sources in some federal courts. Reporters in 49 states and the District of Columbia already are protected by statute or legal precedent, but they are not covered in federal courts that have become increasingly aggressive in using jail terms and fines to force journalists to reveal sources.
The shield law cruised to easy passage in the U.S. House of Representatives, and also in committee in the Senate. But President Bush and many congressional Republicans oppose the bill, arguing the bill could damage national security by harming prosecutors ability to track leaks. Think Scooter Libby and try not to laugh.
On Wednesday, a motion to bring the federal shield law to a vote received 51 "yes" votes (51-43) but fell nine votes shy of the 60 needed. Most Republicans voted against the bill, including two who were co-sponsors.
The reason? Republicans were trying to force a debate with Democrats on an energy bill.
The setback may only be temporary. The bill may be reintroduced before this year's session ends. Or it may be revived after the next president takes office. Both Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama support the legislation.
But the "defeat" Wednesday without a vote on the merits of the legislation is a disappointment, and a reminder that things just don't work right in Washington.
Journalists and all champions of a free flow of information certainly got a bitter taste of the process Wednesday when a federal shield law was blocked by a fight over an energy bill. Yes, you read that right.
The shield law would protect journalists from having to reveal their sources in some federal courts. Reporters in 49 states and the District of Columbia already are protected by statute or legal precedent, but they are not covered in federal courts that have become increasingly aggressive in using jail terms and fines to force journalists to reveal sources.
The shield law cruised to easy passage in the U.S. House of Representatives, and also in committee in the Senate. But President Bush and many congressional Republicans oppose the bill, arguing the bill could damage national security by harming prosecutors ability to track leaks. Think Scooter Libby and try not to laugh.
On Wednesday, a motion to bring the federal shield law to a vote received 51 "yes" votes (51-43) but fell nine votes shy of the 60 needed. Most Republicans voted against the bill, including two who were co-sponsors.
The reason? Republicans were trying to force a debate with Democrats on an energy bill.
The setback may only be temporary. The bill may be reintroduced before this year's session ends. Or it may be revived after the next president takes office. Both Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama support the legislation.
But the "defeat" Wednesday without a vote on the merits of the legislation is a disappointment, and a reminder that things just don't work right in Washington.
