A weakened shield?

Back when he was a U.S. senator -- a very short time ago -- Barack Obama of Illinois was a co-sponsor of the 2007 Free Flow of Information Act, more commonly referred to as the federal reporters' shield law.

On the presidential campaign trail, Mr. Obama again loudly promoted the measure as part of his pledge that his administration would be the most open and transparent in history.

Some worry such a bill could create special privileges for reporters, elevating them into a new class with more rights than the average citizen.

In fact, to enjoy the protection of the law as currently written, a citizen would not need to be employed by any of the "mainstream media." Rather, the bill seeks to prevent overzealous prosecutors from using the threat of imprisonment to chill the willingness of any information-gatherer to publish news of government malfeasance, provided by a whistle-blower who requests anonymity out of fear of government reprisals.

Yet the Obama administration last week did an about-face on the shield law, sending Congress sweeping revisions that even the Obama-worshipping New York Times warned would "significantly weaken its protections against forcing reporters to testify."

The bill requires prosecutors to exhaust other methods for finding the source of leaked information before subpoenaing a reporter, and would balance investigators' interests with "the public interest in gathering news and maintaining the free flow of information."

Under the administration's new proposal, such procedures would not apply to leaks of a matter deemed to cause "significant" harm to national security.

And who would get to decide when the risk is "significant"? While the version of the bill Sen. Obama co-sponsored such a short time ago would have left such determinations up to the judiciary, his administration would now have Congress instruct the judges to "be deferential to executive branch assertions about whether a leak caused or was likely to cause such harm," the Times reports, citing unnamed officials.

In other words: Just trust the fox to tell you when the chickens are in danger.

The two currently Democratic senators who have been prime sponsors of the legislation, Charles E. Schumer of New York and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, did not seem pleased.

Sen. Specter called the proposed changes "totally unacceptable," saying they would gut meaningful judicial review. In a statement last Wednesday, Sen. Schumer said: "The White House's opposition to the fundamental essence of this bill is an unexpected and significant setback. It will make it hard to pass this legislation."

Two-thirds of the states -- including Nevada -- already have similar reporter shield laws, but those laws do not apply in federal court.

"As president, Mr. Obama has been progressively more protective of executive powers in such sensitive areas as state secrets and detainee policy," the Times editorialized on Monday. "It's time for him to recall that in winning the White House, he spoke vigorously in favor of a shield law that trusts the judiciary to settle disclosure conflicts."

In a recent letter calling for a vote on the shield bill, Sen. Specter said that at least 19 journalists had been subpoenaed by federal prosecutors for information about confidential sources since 2001, and that four had been imprisoned for refusing to comply.

Sen. Specter recommended lawmakers vote the bill out and let Mr. Obama deal with it openly.

"If the president wants to veto it, let him veto it," Sen. Specter said. "I think it is different for the president to veto a bill than simply to pass the word from his subordinates to my subordinates that he doesn't like the bill."

While a presidential embrace of the shield law would be preferable, Sen. Specter is correct. Mr. Obama campaigned for president as a backer of the shield law. If he wants to violate yet another campaign promise by vetoing it, make him veto the real thing.