The New York Times published an intriguing Op-Ed this morning, lambasting a site that made available on the Web individual campaign contributions in the U.S since 1980 by simply entering a ZIP code.

The irony of is that the information the author is contesting publishing on the Web, is already public information made available by law by the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

The author goes on to describe how such information is the latest invasion of privacy facilitated by the Web. And he compares it to an unwelcome, voyeuristic look into the window of your political views. What the author fails to grasp is that, in this country, when you give money to a candidate, you have just made your politics public. When you give money to a political cause or campaign, you are becoming an active part of a cause in a very public way. The veil has been lifted. You have forfeited the filament of secrecy provided by the curtain of the voting booth and declared publicly your financial, if not personal, investment in a candidate or cause.

This is a very different issue than invading one's privacy.

And by all rights, it should be public. As a citizen, I want to know who the $100,000 donors to causes are as well as the $50 donors. In my book, they're all the same. And, the beauty of the Web is that it makes it easier for us to access this public information.

The fact of the matter is, what the Web site has done is made accessible to the general public information that is already available and being used by campaigns, reporters, pollsters and other researchers who take the time to go over to the FEC and go through their records.

I would pose the question that if the author is opposed to this kind of information being made public. Would he also be opposed to other legislation that makes similar information about the workings of our government available to the public? Should we say, rid ourselves of the Freedom of Information Act, that has made possible the uncovering of countless government gaffes?

Not in this free society.

Further, in what struck me as an odd omission, The New York Times chose not to provide a link to the site. As Scott Shuger noted in Today's Papers, 'presumably because that would only intensify the problem.'

I think it is appropriate to ask what editorial message the editorial board of The New York Times intended in not providing this link. Not only is the link not available in the print edition (a forgivable offense) but it is also not available on the NYT's Web site. Is this an implicit endorsement of the censorship-laden undertones of the author's Op-Ed?

In the spirit of maintaining a free and open society, I submit to you herewith the Web site in question: http://www.publicdisclosure.org/fecinfo/_zip.htm.