As for the assumption that no one could have anything but a prurient interest in a divorce party's financial affairs ("I don't think there's a great public desire or need to disclose everything," Murray told me), who says so?
The public has a right to know how its judges are performing, and the only way to determine that is to know what they're ruling on. Parties in future divorce cases need to know what to expect, based on the facts underlying earlier rulings. Moreover, numerous entities have a legitimate interest in financial disclosures made in divorce court -- government agencies may scour files for evidence of tax cheating, for instance, and creditors for hints of fraud. Nor should we forget that the party trying to keep financial data confidential is almost always the one who controls those assets -- in other words, the party (usually the husband) with the upper hand in divorce cases from the outset. Murray's bill tilts the playing field more in the stronger party's favor, by taking away a strategic weapon (i.e., disclosure) from the weaker side.
