Does the public have the right to know details of how nearly $50 million of taxpayers' money is spent by legislative leaders in Harrisburg? A lawsuit filed by a powerful state lawmaker charging a Uniontown newspaper with defamation will, indirectly, at least, focus attention on that question and the so-called Special Leadership Accounts used by top officials of both parties in the Senate and House.

The lawsuit hinges on what state Rep. William DeWeese, D-Greene, said to the editorial board of the Uniontown Herald-Standard in October 2000 regarding greater public disclosure of spending details from the $12 million leadership account he controls. Though the lawsuit might drag out for some time, it should, in the meantime, shine a spotlight on the multimillion-dollar, mostly secret spending accounts controlled by a few powerful lawmakers.

If the transcripts of the interview with DeWeese, the Democratic leader in the House, are accurate, he appears to have deflected calls from the newspaper's editorial board for releasing details of spending from his leadership account. He did, however, commit to "take another look at this and get with Republican leaders and Democratic leaders and see if we can change the rules."

What DeWeese did or didn't promise to do while speaking with the newspaper will be thrashed out as the lawsuit proceeds. Of equal importance is the principle of the secret spending accounts.

The lawsuit have brought public attention to the accounts that most lawmakers would have preferred remained in the dark.

The idea that $11 million or so is spent each year by leaders of both parties in the House and Senate without detailed accounting and easily accessible disclosure is disturbing. The public should not be blocked - by law or inconvenience - from knowing how this money is spent.

While DeWeese agreed in principle with the benefits of greater disclosure, his promise to work with leaders from both parties in the House and Senate to improve public access to the accounts sounds a little disingenuous. There would seem to be little enthusiasm or motivation among party leaders to open their special spending accounts to the prying eyes of the press and public.

Whether deserved or not, it can be expected there will surely be objections to how some of the money is spent. So why would party leaders be truly interested in changing the current system that shields them from scrutiny and criticism?

Reform seems unlikely because both parties benefit from the current system. Only broad and sustained pressure from the public and press is likely to change the way the accounts are handled. Even then, meaningful change might be a long shot, considering Harrisburg's reputation as a laggard when it comes to good-government reforms.

In recent years, some progress reportedly has been made in the Senate, but the House has been less progressive in opening up its leadership accounts. Some spending is revealed in general categories, but there is still significant spending that citizens just don't know about.

The generally accepted notion is that a fair amount of the money is spent on political activities - not the stated purpose for the accounts. And, as such, they can be viewed as another method of incumbent protection by providing re-election support. Distribution of the money in the accounts is also widely understood to be used by party leaders to keep rank-and-file members in line - as either reward or punishment.

If forced to defend the secrecy surrounding the accounts, it's hard to imagine lawmakers offering convincing reasons why the spending should remain largely shrouded in secrecy. For that reason, DeWeese's lawsuit might have the unintended consequence of forcing reform of the infamous leadership accounts.

The public should stay tuned to the lawsuit's progress and keep pressure on Harrisburg to be more open about how taxpayers' money is spent. In the Internet age, there is no excuse for detailed, line-item spending from these accounts being kept out of the public's view.