Pennsylvania House Bill HR72

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/12/25
• Refer: 2/12/25

Caption

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for meeting publications.

Impact

Should HR72 be enacted, it would create a formal requirement for state legislators to disclose meetings with nonconstituents, thereby fostering greater accountability in the legislative process. By publishing information about these interactions, the bill aims to allow the public to be informed about who lawmakers are meeting with and the topics discussed. This could potentially mitigate concerns about hidden lobbying efforts and ensure that all discussions regarding state regulations or proposed legislative changes are transparent.

Summary

House Resolution 72, introduced by Representatives Webster and Hanbidge, seeks to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives regarding the publication of meetings where state law, regulations, or legislation is discussed. Its primary aim is to enhance transparency in governmental processes by ensuring that any in-person or virtual meetings between lawmakers and nonconstituents are publicly documented on the official websites of the members involved. This includes details such as the date and time of the meeting, as well as the names and organizational affiliations of all nonconstituents present.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HR72 appears to be generally supportive of increased transparency within the legislative process. Proponents argue that this is a necessary step towards improving public trust in government by openly documenting interactions with nonconstituents. However, there may be some contentions surrounding the implementation of such a requirement, particularly in terms of practicality and the potential impact on the operations of legislators who must adhere to these new rules.

Contention

While the bill is aimed at promoting transparency, it could face pushback regarding the feasibility of compliance and concerns over privacy for the nonconstituents involved in these meetings. Critics might argue that the mandatory disclosure could dissuade some individuals from engaging with their legislators, potentially limiting the flow of information and perspectives that policymakers rely on to make informed decisions.