This bill was sponsored by a man who has a constituent involved in a very public divorce case. The constituent is also, by the way, a billionaire and a major contributor to the sponsor's political party. But while I don't approve of the seaminess in which this legislation got its start, I am forced to agree with what it is aimed at doing.
Essentially, the bill prevents the public - and that means the press - from having access to financial records in a divorce action. It is the usual rule, of course, to make all evidence in a trial available to the public because of the public's interest in having all trials free and open. But in this world of identity theft it makes sense to withhold some information; and in the case of a businessman whose business interests (which presumably affect not only himself, but his employees and shareholders) some financial information - like planned mergers - may be highly sensitive and not necessarily relevant to the determination of marital assets.
In my original post on this topic, I said that the smelly politics behind this bill made it seem that billionaires could order up special legislation to suit their very personal needs. I suggested that the solution would be to not to have an all-encompassing proscription against financial details, but to have each court have discretion on what documents should be released.
So I was very happy when I read this in the newspaper:
The committee amended the bill to require judges to decide case-by-case whether financial privacy trumps the public's right to access. The original wording would have required the sealing of records if one party asked for it.
The news media doesn't like this bill, presumably because it will keep them from seeing records in many celebrity cases, or those involving businessmen. I understand their frustration - but for every instance in which the public may have a legitimate interest in such data, I can think of about a thousand instances in which the public's interest is more one of curiousity and nosiness.
I still don't like the politics that gave birth to the bill, but I suppose even good legislation arises from the cesspool of politics. If this bill is finally approved and signed into law, I think there will still be few cases in which financial records are sealed, since every judge I know is sensitive to the public's interest in open judicial proceedings.