The Montana Newspaper Association recently took some heat for doing what it always does — defending the public’s right to know.

In this case, the issue was whether or not information about holders of concealed carry permits would be kept public, as it is now, or available only to government agencies.

Usually, it’s a no-brainer to keep public information public, but in this case, some people were alarmed because of what happened in New York recently when a newspaper foolishly published the names and addresses of all holders of gun permits in a two-county area.

We condemn that newspaper just as loudly as anyone. It used bad news judgment and potentially put people at risk for being targeted by thieves or worse.

But let’s be clear. There is a big difference between printing the names of all legal gun owners and those who have concealed carry permits. Gun ownership is a constitutional right; concealed carry is a privilege that carries with it certain responsibilities.

We think citizens should have the right — as they do now — to find out if other members of their community have been approved to secretly carry a gun. That could give people vital information needed to protect themselves.

The MNA recognized, as we do, that the individual right to privacy also exists. In order to balance privacy with the right to know, MNA opposes SB 145, which would close ALL information in concealed carry permit applications, and instead supports SB 37, which would allow the public to find out only the name and address of applicants. Indeed, the MNA’s representative suggested that name and county would even be adequate.

The Inter Lake would never publish such information in bulk, as the newspaper in New York did, but there could be occasions when the name of a particular holder of a concealed carry permit would be newsworthy.

Restricting information in advance is always dangerous, and this would be no exception.

Campaign finance reform

Seeing how there seems to be great desire and support for transparancy in campaign financing, and how “dark money” is considered the bane of modern Montana campaigns, a bill in the Legislature to raise limits on acceptable campaign contributions makes sense.

Particularly in the wake of the last election cycle, which was overwhelmed with advertising paid for by third-party organizations with contributions from unknown parties. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Scott Reichner, R-Bigfork, maintains that candidates need higher campaign limits to defend themselves from dark money advertising.

The donations would have to be disclosed publicly, meeting the transparency test, and they could be an effective counter to third-party campaigning. Reichner thinks the higher limits will help attract contributors who would otherwise go to third-party groups with large contributions.

It’s worth noting that the state’s current limits may be ruled unconstitutional. That was the conclusion of a district court judge last year, who said that the limits prohibit candidates from effectively competing with third-party money, but the case is under review in a federal appeals court.

Editorials represent the majority opinion of the Daily Inter Lake’s editorial board.