TV stations soon will have to post their political ad contracts online, to make it easier for the public to see them. The FCC made that ruling recently.

At least one local TV station doesn’t like the ruling; another says it’ll result in a lot of extra work. The documents already were public — but you had to go to the stations to get them, and they could charge you for copies.

The FCC said putting the records online would result in “substantial” benefit to the public. With a recent Supreme Court ruling allowing more money to come in to political campaigns, the ruling will make it easier to track PAC spending on candidates’ ads, for example.

Before the ruling, the national online investigative news org ProPublica had been leading a movement to gather the documents and post them online. The Daily Record/Sunday News was involved, and we posted the docs we gathered before the Pennsylvania primary at the link above.

From The Associated Press:

A federal appeals court in Chicago ruled Tuesday that Illinois’ eavesdropping law “likely violates” the First Amendment and ordered that authorities be banned from enforcing it.

The ruling from the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago is the strongest blow yet to the law, which is one of the strictest in the country and makes it illegal for people to audio record police officers in public without their consent.

The ruling follows last month’s announcement by Chicago officials that they would not enforce the law during the May 20-21 NATO summit when potentially thousands of people armed with smart phones and video cameras are expected to demonstrate in the city.

Read the full story here.

The Reporters’ Committee for Freedom of the Press welcomed the appeals court’s decision.

The court could not have been clearer about the importance of protecting the public’s right to observe and record the actions of public officials in public places,” said Reporters Committee Executive Director Lucy A. Dalglish in a story on RCFP’s website (link above). “Although Chicago police had indicated they would not enforce the law during the NATO Summit later this month – which we all expect will be accompanied by protests and police activity – it’s nice to have the force of the court’s decision on the right to record those events.”

“The notion that audio recording police activity in a public place, where there is no expectation of privacy, constitutes a felony is absurd and advances absolutely no government interest,” Dalglish added. “We are delighted that the appeals court agreed.”

The American Civil Liberties Union in Illinois had asked for an injunction that would stop Cook County prosecutors from enforcing the law. A federal judge rejected the request, and the ACLU appealed to the 7th Circuit.

The (Hanover) Evening Sun’s report that the Littlestown Borough Council president is suing the borough to force it to open its committee meetings to the public includes a bunch of classic reasons officials trot out when they keep things private that ought to be public:

1. It costs money because we have to advertise the meetings. Implication being that residents don’t care to know when council members meet to talk about spending REAL sums of money.

2. No one will come to the meetings. Let me know if you’re aware whether the people who set up our governments to be open to the public also established an “only if people show up” clause.

3. We’re not trying to keep residents in the dark. Of course you aren’t; who would think such a thing? But there are those who say a government agency, instead of not trying to keep information from people, should actually try to get information to people.

You should read the story to see one council member’s interesting assessment of the lawsuit. The council president, Paul Sharpless, seems to nail it when he says the issue is  ”pretty straightforward” — committee meetings are open meetings under the Sunshine Act and, thus, ought to be advertised so residents can attend if they wish.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that it and another newspaper, The Observer-Reporter of Washington, are asking a court to open a sealed settlement between a Washington County family and Marcellus Shale development companies.

The family had alleged health problems as a result of gas drilling activities.

The Post-Gazette story says there are “27 other court cases in seven states involving confidential settlements or limited disclosure or nondisclosure of court proceedings.”

We were happy to find out earlier this week that the York Daily Record/Sunday News won this year’s John V.R. Bull Freedom of Information Award for its coverage of right-to-know issues.

The award is one of a few “specialty awards” given out by the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association in its Keystone Press Awards. (YDR staffers won 22 awards, and the paper won the “sweepstakes” award, given to the organization with the most points in an accounting of all awards won. Here’s some of what our staffers learned as they worked on the pieces that were honored.)

PNA describes the Bull award this way:

The John V. R. Bull Freedom of Information Award,
in honor of the retired Philadelphia Inquirer editor who also was a founding member and leader of the First Amendment
Coalition, honors a journalist or newspaper for exceptional work advancing or upholding the cause of Freedom of
Information during the past year.

So it’s a big deal. Our entry included stories about our court battle to get 911 time-response logs and how the county’s system leads to inaccurate data; the story we broke about a county judge holding secret jury selection for a murder trial; posts from this blog; and a story about mistakes on the federal government’s map showing where hazardous materials are stored in York County; and how York County can’t accurately track its departments’ overtime spending.

We’re always looking for good public-records based stories to look into. Let us know if you have ideas.