When you're up to your ears in alligators, it's hard to remember that the original idea was to drain the swamp.

That's probably what the head of Missouri's Department of Revenue thought when a proposed bill intended to bring in money instead drew the wrath of the press and questions on access to information.

Missouri Senate Bill No. 597 started years ago as a way to raise money by charging for driver's records. The most recent draft of the proposed bill divided public information users into five separate categories with "amounts charged by the department of revenue for providing copies of driver records based on categories of customers."

Bill 597 ended, killed by the lack of passage by the Missouri Legislature, but not before it spawned a dialogue between the Missouri Press Association and the Department of Revenue on access to information. The debate also raised the issue of the wisdom of allowing states to use access to information as a revenue source. It also should send up a warning flag to the press in other states.

"It was never intended to narrow the scope of information," said Ray Wagner, director of Missouri's Department of Revenue.

"Senate Bill 597 was proposed years ago to maintain funding for the Department of Revenue. We didn't think it would have any impact on the media for two reasons," he said. First, in the final version of the bill, the media's rates were no higher than the current fees. Second, the department can waive the fees under certain circumstances and often does in the case of media requests, Wagner said.

The Missouri Press Association took another view. "We don't think the state should be selling public information for a profit," said Doug Crews, executive director of the MPA.

An ad hoc MPA public documents group met with Wagner and hammered out a four-point letter of recommendation. It included the MPA's position against the state selling information and recommended that the Department of Revenue charge all public information requestors the same fees which should comply with Missouri's open access statute. It also should "not exceed the actual cost of document search and duplication"; publish a list of fees for document search and duplication; and develop as soon as possible of on-line access to public records to "provide for citizens the easiest, widest and least expensive access to the Department's data."

Instead of a fight, MPA got support.

"I fully understand their concerns and I don't disagree with their concerns," Wagner said. According to him, the bill won't be back. Instead the Department will seek funds from other sources, make adjustments in personnel and reallocate resources, Wagner said.

But the issue of money and information remains.

"This is an example of a nationwide phenomenon," said Dr. Sandra Davidson Scott, an assistant professor of communication law at the University of Missouri School of Journalism. "It's a fact that the state government never has enough money to do what they want to do and so people start casting about for ways to make money."

And sometimes that means state agencies trying to cash in on the often lucrative information brokering business, a move Scott opposes. "I don't want to see records accessibility as a money making activity," she said, which would create a potential for information restriction. "You start getting into a lot of problems," Scott said, "especially if you start dividing citizens into categories."

While the beast of information for money is dead in Missouri, the national economic crunch could bring it to life in other states.