Sure, it's probably menial to talk about such a cross-x, but the underlying theme is that it's okay to recognize the importance of the right you're burdened to outweigh. The other affirmative issue worth highlighting is the inherent value of privacy rights. An offshoot on this idea is the affirmative argument that candidates don't deserve as much privacy protection as the general public. The obvious negative counter-claim is that since candidates aren't elected, they don't consent to privacy violations just yet. Consider pre-emptive blocks to this counter to put in your affirmative case, if you choose to run this argument.
Public record is, by definition, an account of happenings that affect the public.
As long as the affirmative accepts the fact that public record exists, all the negative debater has to do to negate is show that an electorate ought be considered sufficiently informed with information relevant to the job a candidate would do in office. Steve Davis explains this argument best in his overview in the Victory Briefs book on this topic, so I won't be redundant by going over it again. Asking yourself why that criterion matters for the round derives your value premise.