Now, in the interest of full disclosure, it must be said here that The Spectrum & Daily News makes money from these advertisements and, on a very personal level, I can't help but believe that anybody who takes a dollar away from this newspaper takes money out of my pocket.

That said, what Stowell is proposing goes beyond the pettiness of trying to get back at an industry that questioned the way he took the Republican nomination -- which practically ensured his victory last November.

You may recall that Hatch filed to run for another term, then in the last hours before the filings closed, withdrew his name and Stowell entered his.

Exhibit A in the list of transparent acts.

Now, Stowell and his supporters didn't like the fact that this newspaper questioned his methods.

Did he and Hatch do something illegal?

Of course not.

But, often times something that is legal doesn't quite pass the sniff test for being ethical and ethics, as we found during the last national election, is a matter of great importance to a majority of American voters.

Stowell is now pushing for this measure to try to cut the revenue stream of not only this newspaper but those throughout the state.

Exhibit B in the list of transparent acts.

What this bill also indicates is that some of our government officials apparently don't like the idea of having a free flow of information between themselves and the people they represent.

As advanced as the new media is -- I'm referring now to the Internet, which is making great strides in informing the public -- it still is not the primary delivery system for information in this locale, which equates to a great number of people being shut out from these important public notices if this bill goes through.

Really, this brings to the fore the ages-old struggle between those who look for that positive spin so many of our leaders would like put on everything and the media, whose job it is to report the facts and allow the public to decide for itself what is right and what is wrong.

I can't help but wonder about how much influence Stowell's supporters, who so strongly defended his actions, have on this bill. Are they dry-washing their hands, hoping for a little payback because this newspaper is not their house organ?

Dennis, I challenge you and your followers to give good reason to this bill, which not only strikes me as petty, but a dangerous precedent to limit the flow of the public's right to this information.

Put your cards on the table, Dennis, and show us how your bill can possibly serve the greater need of the public you were elected to serve.