García Márquez archive cost questions

       It was widely reported last fall that García Márquez's archive was bought by the University of Texas at Austin's Harry Ransom Center -- see, for example, the official press release.
       Less widely reported -- indeed, nowhere reported -- was just how much they shelled out for the archive. Admirably, the Associated Press and the American-Statesman requested the information; disturbingly, the University of Texas "refused to release the contract and purchase price for the archive", and is seeking: "a supporting opinion from the state attorney general's office" -- cover to keep the information secret; see, for example, Jim Vertuno's report.
       This might not be a good thing:

Joe Larsen, an attorney for the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas and public records law expert, said a ruling siding with the university would cripple a major portion of the open records law.

"If it stands, it will blow a hole in public records law so wide it will hobble any oversight of government spending," Larsen said.

       The university claims, in its letter to the Texas AG:

that the release of the purchase price of the recently acquired archive of Latin American literary giant Gabriel Garcia Marquez should be kept secret because its disclosure would put the university's Harry Ransom Center "at a disadvantage in negotiating advantageous prices on future acquisitions."

"This is particularly true when the Center acquires the archive of a major figure for a substantial sum," the letter says. "The release of that price information becomes a new benchmark by which future archives are valued."

       Understandably, they want to be able to screw the widows etc. of writers -- and, indeed, writers themselves, who often sell their archives while they're still alive -- but I'm not sure anyone's interests are being served by this secrecy (including theirs: surely the next would-be archive-seller is going to find this behavior very fishy and not be enthusiastic about getting an offer at an: "advantageous price" ...). What have they got to hide ? (especially given since past practice has been to (quietly) reveal the amounts paid). Surely, the only possibilities are that they either massively underpaid, or massively overpaid.
       An imbalance in information between buyer and seller makes killings possible in capitalism; I'm not sure it's appropriate behavior from a public institution whose remit is scholarly. (Yes, the less they have to pay for an archive, the more they can spend on other things; still, not really very sporting, among other things.)