Republicans and Democrats may be sharply divided, but they are nearly unanimous that the voices of everyday constituents must never be drowned out by big donors — nor by their servants, lobbyists, who secretively relay their wishes to those in political office.
This is why an upcoming ruling on Pennsylvania journalists’ access to correspondence between lawmakers and lobbyists is so important to our political process and to the voters’ trust in the political system. If the Commonwealth Court sides with Angela Coloumbis of Spotlight PA, who brought the suit, journalists and the public will have access to at least some of the correspondence between lawmakers and lobbyists.
Her 2022 article about controversial gambling “skill games” revealed that casino executives weren’t just sharing their point of view, or even spreading their own talking points, but in some cases literally drafting legislation. A proposed law banning skill games, a major source of income for small establishments like local independent bars, was written nearly word-for-word by their biggest competitor: private casinos.
The lawsuit’s argument hinges on the power of a clause within Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know law. Couloumbis argues that it requires disclosure, a claim with which we agree. The State Senate, however, disagreed.
When Pennsylvania lawmakers reworked public records laws in 2008, they didn’t include lawmakers’ emails in the 19 categories of explicitly public legislative documents. But another clause in the law, which specifically mentions correspondence between lawmakers and lobbyists, could be a new public pathway to these documents — if the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court agrees.
These types of public records battles are not just important to journalists. Fewer than 10% of public records requests come from reporters. Business owners, legal professionals and everyday citizens all have compelling reasons to access public records about their lawmakers.
They should be able to do so easily and efficiently — and be able to access any record that does not truly require confidentiality. We do not see that category to include people paid to influence legislation for deep pocketed interests, in a way normal citizens cannot.
The Commonwealth Court should reject the Senate’s self-interested claims and rule in the favor of more public disclosure and allow as much correspondence between lobbyists and politicians as the law allows to come to light.
If American citizens must accept the persistent role and influence of money and lobbyists in our political life, we deserve full transparency into how lawmakers are being influenced.
— Pittsburgh Post-Gazette via TNS
