Broadcast news pioneer Edward Murrow said, "Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar."

The AJC may order ink by the barrel, but that doesn't mean what it prints isn't flawed ("Gas lobbyists feted regulators," Page One, April 1).

The story suggests that I "staunchly defend" gas marketers because I receive campaign contributions and have been entertained by utility company officials. I hate to let facts get in the way of a juicy story about lobbyists and hockey games, but your readers might find it important that I voted to start the very investigation into gas marketer pricing that is the subject of the story. Also conveniently omitted is that I authored the prevailing motion that puts a halt to the pricing schemes and fines the gas marketers $2.5 million. Does that sound like someone who defends the gas marketers?

What confuses the reporter is that I support giving utilities limited discovery rights so that our staff is also answerable to those they regulate. A good jurist corrects the marketers when they exhibit anti-consumer behavior while also demanding accountability in the government staff making the accusations, which is exactly what I have done. It is true that I did not vote for the recent request by SCANA for full discovery. This was not because I "came under fire" as the reporter boasts, but because the request submitted was too broad and would have opened Pandora's box.

There is a double standard when it comes to coverage of commissioners who support business principles vs. those who are so-called consumer-oriented. After disclosing the utility-related contributions of three business-minded commissioners, the reporter contrasts that: "Commission members Robert Baker and Angela Speir did not receive money from people representing those companies in recent years."

But a quick glance at the State Ethics Commission Web site shows that within the last year Baker indeed received at least $1,500 in campaign contributions and three dinners or lunches with the very gas marketer lobbyists featured in the story. This is not an honest omission, but a deliberate attempt to mislead. The article highlights a hockey game I recently attended with the new CEO of AGL Resources, but the reporter ignores information given that Baker recently dined with the same CEO while this very case was being heard. This is not fair coverage.

Should it surprise anyone that the people who have the most to gain or lose from government often are the ones who participate most in the democratic process? Is it a surprise that the Georgia Supreme Court justices receive most of their contributions from members of the State Bar, or that the Insurance commissioner gets most of his contributions from the insurance industry, or that a Transportation Committee chair in the General Assembly gets large contributions from transportation interests? It is not a surprise, and it should not be demonized. It is called the exercise of free speech. This right stems from the same First Amendment that gives this paper the freedom to express opinions and offer what it hopes, but doesn't always achieve, is fair and balanced news coverage.

> Stan Wise is a member of the Georgia Public Service Commission.