Napa, CA – Across California, a growing divide is emerging between lawmakers’ efforts to increase transparency and proposals that critics argue could undermine public accountability. In town halls across the state, residents have expressed concerns about the Trump administration’s policies, from cuts to overseas aid to Medicare, directly confronting their representatives with their frustrations. Yet, at the same time, a wave of legislative efforts is quietly pushing for more secrecy, making it harder for Californians to engage with their elected officials and limiting public access to government actions.
In the state Legislature, at least a dozen bills have been introduced that would restrict the ability of the public to confront local officials at meetings and shield more information from the public eye. According to an analysis of CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database, these proposals reflect a broader trend of officials seeking to limit public access to the workings of government.
This growing inclination toward secrecy is exemplified by Governor Gavin Newsom’s recent actions. Newsom sent “burner phones” to key business leaders, preprogramming them with his personal number, allowing him to communicate with executives without the need to disclose the content of these conversations. Paid for by his nonprofit organization, this action has raised eyebrows for its lack of transparency. Additionally, government employees, including lawmakers, have signed non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to prevent the sharing of details about taxpayer-funded renovations to the state Capitol. These measures are just the latest in a series of efforts by state officials to shield themselves from public scrutiny.
These moves have triggered alarm among ethics advocates, who fear the erosion of public trust in a government that increasingly operates behind closed doors. Some Republican lawmakers, such as Assemblymember Carl DeMaio of San Diego, have raised their voices in protest. DeMaio introduced two bills during National Sunshine Week—an event meant to promote government transparency—calling for more disclosure, not less.
“It’s a time for us to ask the critical question: Are decisions in government being made in the public light? Can the people know what’s going on?” DeMaio said.
The issue of public engagement also extends to the question of how lawmakers interact with their constituents. In 2023, Senator Roger Niello, a Republican from Roseville, voiced his concerns about the shift toward remote meetings, arguing that in-person interactions are far more impactful. “There’s nothing more thrilling for a local elected official than having constituents exercise their right to yell and scream at you,” Niello said, referencing a proposal to allow neighborhood councils in Los Angeles to meet remotely until 2026. Despite his objections, that proposal was signed into law, contributing to a broader trend of remote meetings that has gained traction since the pandemic.
While proponents of remote participation argue that it modernizes government practices by increasing accessibility, reducing costs, and ensuring flexibility in emergencies, critics contend that it shields elected officials from direct scrutiny. They argue that face-to-face meetings allow constituents to hold their representatives accountable in a way that virtual meetings cannot replicate. Dora Rose, deputy director of the League of Women Voters of California, emphasized the need for transparency in public governance.
“Public officials must be accountable: They should be required to attend in person, ensuring that the public can see them, speak to them directly, and hold them responsible for decisions that impact their communities,” Rose told legislators in a recent hearing.
One of the most significant proposals this year is SB 707, introduced by Senator María Elena Durazo, a Democrat from Los Angeles. Durazo’s bill would make exceptions for various groups to meet remotely but also aims to require local governments to provide a call-in option for public meetings. However, this provision has sparked debate, with city officials expressing concerns about the risk of disruptions during virtual meetings, such as “Zoom bombing,” where participants flood the meeting with offensive content.
Another area where the Legislature is moving toward increased secrecy involves campaign finance laws. In a push to relax disclosure requirements, Assemblymember Mike Fong, a Democrat from Alhambra, introduced AB 755, which would extend the time officials have to disclose “behested payments”—donations made at the request of a politician. Critics argue that this bill would make it more difficult for the public to know which special interests are influencing their lawmakers in real time. Currently, officials must disclose these payments within 30 days, but AB 755 would allow them up to 120 days to do so.
The bill is part of a broader effort to reduce the transparency of campaign donations. Senate Bill 760, introduced by Senator Ben Allen of El Segundo, would allow officials to stop reporting donations made to third parties, such as charities, as long as they don’t directly benefit from the funds. Similarly, Senate Bill 300, introduced by Senator Steve Padilla of Chula Vista, would remove the requirement for public officials to recuse themselves from decisions that could benefit organizations they belong to, such as unions or business groups.
These proposals are fueling concerns about the growing influence of special interests and the lack of real-time information available to voters. Critics argue that such changes would further distance the public from the political process and erode trust in government at a time when transparency is needed more than ever.
As the debate over government secrecy and public accountability intensifies, Californians are left questioning how to balance the need for flexibility and modernization with the essential requirement that their elected officials remain visible, accessible, and answerable to the people they serve. The outcome of these legislative battles will likely determine whether California continues to lead the way in promoting transparent governance or follows a troubling trend toward greater opacity.