Maine lawmaker wants to open intraparty meetings to public
Feb. 6—A bill before the Maine Legislature would make private intraparty meetings of lawmakers open to the public, which its sponsor says will increase transparency and provide more insight into how lawmakers arrive at decisions.
The proposal would give the public access to gatherings of three or more lawmakers of the same party by adding legislative caucuses to the list of meetings subject to Maine's Freedom of Access Act.
The act already protects public access to meetings of the full Legislature and its bipartisan committees, as well as to local school board and city council meetings. The same law also mandates that records belonging to public agencies and officials are public.
"LD 12 will add a new level of transparency to the legislative process," Sen. Rick Bennett, R-Oxford, the bill's sponsor, said during a public hearing Wednesday. "It will ensure the public can see how decisions are made, who is influencing those decisions and the reasoning behind our policies or laws."
It's common for lawmakers to meet in closed-door caucuses to discuss strategy or hold negotiations, but such meetings also have been criticized as a tool for subverting public access laws to conduct legislative business.
In one instance last year, Democrats came under fire for a private caucus in which committee members were briefed by an official from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives while considering several firearms measures. Republicans criticized the move, saying the meeting shouldn't have been held in private.
The Maine Press Association submitted written testimony in support of Bennett's bill, and no one testified against it. But changing the law could be complicated, and it's unclear how much support the proposal will have among lawmakers. The bill does not list any co-sponsors.
Lawmakers on the Judiciary Committee asked Bennett how the bill could affect legislative working papers that are now confidential under state law, and whether discussions around a party's political strategy would be open to the public.
Bennett said his intent is not to disturb the ability of lawmakers to solicit input under the working papers exemption as they develop a bill, but he said that legislative decisions should not be made in private.
"People making real decisions behind closed doors, that ought not to be done and there doesn't seem to be a means of addressing that through social or cultural change," he said.
Bennett said he understands that political strategy is "not, strictly speaking, the public's business."
"(But) if we're doing policy work and making decisions, sharing information like three selectmen sitting around a diner table having a conversation about a public matter, which is against the law, I'd like to see those kinds of conversations not rendered unless there is public access," he said.
The Maine Press Association, which includes 44 newspapers and digital news sites across the state, said negotiations and conversations that take place behind closed doors violate the principles of transparency.
"Private caucus meetings prevent freedom of access, and constituents are left out of the process," the association said in its written testimony. "That subverts the very nature of our participatory democracy."
Bennett, who has served on and off in either the Senate or House of Representatives since 1990, said he sees more and more work and decision-making being done in caucuses. "I know there are reasons for that and we all can surmise what they are with growing levels of partisanship and toxicity," he said. "I believe we need an antidote to this."
The committee on Wednesday also heard a proposal from Rep. Laurel Libby, R-Auburn, that would require agencies and officials to fulfill Freedom of Access Act requests for public records within 30 days. The bill, LD 152, would update current law, which requires agencies to fulfill requests "within a reasonable time."
Libby has two Democratic co-sponsors on the bill, but it has also been met with opposition from numerous municipalities, schools and state agencies that say they don't have the resources to work within a 30-day time constraint when fulfilling records requests, many of which can be broad and complicated.
Libby, meanwhile, said she has heard from constituents who are frustrated by the amount of time it can take to fulfill a request. In one example, the Maine Prisoner Advocacy Coalition said in written testimony that it is still waiting for data requested from the state medical examiner's office in 2023 to better understand a rise in deaths among people on probation.
"This bill is essential," said Jan Collins, the coalition's assistant director. "Lifesaving public policy decisions are wholly dependent on information government offices collect. We should be able to access it in a timely manner."
Copy the Story Link
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
9 minutes ago
- CBS News
GOP leaders cite L.A. immigration protests to push for quick passage of Trump's "big, beautiful bill"
Washington — The White House and Republican leaders in Congress are urging lawmakers to quickly get behind the centerpiece of President Trump's legislative agenda, saying the ongoing immigration protests in Los Angeles adds urgency to the push to secure additional resources for border security. House Speaker Mike Johnson said on X on Monday that the legislation, which addresses Mr. Trump's tax, energy and immigration priorities, "provides the ESSENTIAL funding needed to secure our nation[']s borders." Republicans call the legislation the "one big, beautiful bill." "The lawlessness happening in LA is ANOTHER reason why we need to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill IMMEDIATELY," Johnson said, pledging that Congress will support Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who he said are "fighting to keep Americans safe against illegal aliens AND the radical left." White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt shared a similar message earlier Monday, saying the scenes unfolding in some areas of Los Angeles "prove that we desperately need more immigration enforcement personnel and resources." "America must reverse the invasion unleashed by Joe Biden of millions of unvetted illegal aliens into our country," Leavitt said in a post on X. "That's why President Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill funds at least one million annual removals and hires 10,000 new ICE personnel, 5,000 new customs officers, and 3,000 new Border Patrol agents." Speaker of the House Mike Johnson holds a press conference after the House narrowly passed a bill forwarding President Trump's agenda at the U.S. Capitol on May 22, 2025, in Washington, legislation is now in the hands of the Senate after the House narrowly approved it last month following weeks of intraparty disagreement over its components. Though the bulk of the funding allocated in the legislation goes toward tax cuts, it also includes resources aimed at bolstering border security and defense. It provides $46.5 billion for the border wall, $4.1 billion to hire Border Patrol agents and other personnel and more than $2 billion for signing and retention bonuses for agents. It also imposes an additional $1,000 fee for people who are filing for asylum in the U.S. The disagreement among Republicans over the bill has largely centered on cuts meant to offset the bill's spending, including restrictions to Medicaid. In the House's razor-thin GOP majority, the disagreements threatened to tank the bill's progress at every stage. And as the bill moved to the Senate for consideration last week, Johnson warned the upper chamber against making significant changes that would throw off the delicate balance. Senate Republicans initially voiced support for separating the complicated tax components and border security provisions into two separate bills to deliver Mr. Trump a victory on immigration early on in his tenure. But House Republicans opposed the approach, expressing doubts that the president's agenda could pass through the narrow GOP majority in the lower chamber in separate parts. Senate Republicans are now seeking to amend the House-passed bill, sending it back to the House for approval with a goal of getting the legislation to the president's desk by the July 4 holiday. And with a 53-seat majority, the upper chamber can afford to lose just three Republicans. Last week, opposition from Elon Musk threatened to throw a wrench into the legislation's progress, after he stoked concerns by fiscal hawks about the bill's impact on the deficit. The episode, which began with Musk calling the bill "a disgusting abomination," erupted into a dramatic and public feud between Musk and the president last week. But the dispute did not appear to spark significant new opposition the the bill in Congress. The urgency expressed Monday surrounding securing additional border resources comes as Mr. Trump called for the National Guard to enforce order in the L.A. area amid protests over activity by ICE, prompting a clash with California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Newsom warned that the move would inflame the situation, while urging that there is no shortage of law enforcement. The governor indicated late Sunday that his office plans to sue the Trump administration over Mr. Trump's move. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem defended the president's move on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" Sunday, claiming Newsom "has proven that he makes bad decisions." "The president knows that [Newsom] makes bad decisions, and that's why the president chose the safety of this community over waiting for Gov. Newsom to get some sanity," Noem added.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kash Patel Sends Ominous Threat in Response to L.A. Protests
The FBI says it will act on its own to squash the Los Angeles anti-ICE protests. FBI Director Kash Patel issued an ominous threat to the city and its residents late Sunday night, claiming that his agency would intervene in the multiday anti-Trump display without explicit direction. 'Just so we are clear, this FBI needs no one's permission to enforce the constitution,' Patel posted on X. 'My responsibility is to the American people, not political punch lines. LA is under siege by marauding criminals, and we will restore law and order. I'm not asking you, I'm telling you.' In a move that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem should agree with, California announced it would sue the federal government Monday, arguing that the Trump administration's order to send hundreds of National Guard troops toward Los Angeles, without coordination with the state's governor, was an unconstitutional breach of power. Hours earlier, FBI Public Affairs Assistant Director Ben Williamson shared that Patel had gotten off a call with 'senior leadership' addressing what they referred to as 'riots' in L.A., specifying that Patel and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino had 'offered all necessary resources from FBI HQ' to address the situation. Williamson said the pair 'reiterated the position that any perpetrator who attacks or interferes with law enforcement will be aggressively pursued and brought to justice.' Bongino made it plain that one of the agency's primary targets would be individuals suspected of assaulting officers, writing on X that he and Patel had notified all FBI teams to pursue suspected individuals 'long after order is firmly established.' 'We will not forget. Even after you try to,' Bongino posted. But Republicans have so far not been very successful at pinpointing wrongdoing in Los Angeles. Instead, some viral videos circulating in conservative circles of protest-related violence in the city are actually not from the weekend at all, but were instead taken in 2020 during the Black Lives Matter protests.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Democrats are looking for answers — outside Washington
On the campaign trail, President Trump made a lot of promises. He promised to strengthen our economy. He promised to make our government more efficient. He promised to bring down costs. But after more than 100 days in, our economy is not strengthened, our government is certainly not more efficient, and costs are not down. The president has entangled us in trade wars with some of our closest trading partners — wars that erased $10 trillion from the stock market this spring and threaten to decimate family farms in my district and across the country. And with the help of the Department of Government Efficiency, he has waged an all-out assault on the federal government in an effort to weed out 'waste, fraud, and abuse.' I believe the American people elected Trump because they wanted solutions to pocketbook issues and a government that took action to get things done. But the president's agenda isn't working, and Democrats need to deliver. That's where the New Dem Coalition comes in. Before I explain why, I want to acknowledge that Democrats haven't always gotten everything right. During the election, we saw many working class voters drift away from the party. At times, our emphasis on identity politics or concepts like 'saving democracy' — while undeniably important — overshadowed the core economic issues that affect people's everyday lives. Instead of meeting voters where they are, we sometimes come across as telling them where they should be. That approach can feel out of touch and give the impression that the party is elitist, disconnected from the realities of everyday people. Working class voters are focused on how they'll afford their mortgage, put food on the table, or save for their kids' college — not necessarily on abstract debates about the soul of the nation. Don't get me wrong: the threat to democracy is real and urgent, especially with a president who shows little respect for courts or the Constitution. But if we're truly going to save democracy, we must build a broader coalition and bring more voters along. That means meeting people where they are, rather than telling them what should matter most. We need to address the tangible, kitchen-table issues that keep folks up at night. The New Dem Coalition has always done this. We have prioritized the needs of hard working Americans over the politics of D.C. We understand that we should be finding ways to make our government more efficient. We understand that we have to work across the aisle when we can — without compromising our values. That's why New Dems are crafting a proactive agenda — not only to win the House majority in 2026, but to maintain it for the long term. So, we're getting out of the D.C. bubble for a new series known as 'New Dems On the Road.' We'll be engaging with communities across the country, and gathering the critical feedback we need to guide our work. We're tackling every issue — from improving education outcomes to bolstering our national security — and working to find practical, lasting solutions that reflect the values and priorities of the American people. For our first stop, we zeroed in on immigration. Immigration isn't a problem we're going to solve overnight, but it's one that is consistently top of mind for the American people. We've come close to bipartisan solutions, only for selfish interests to squash our efforts in the 11th hour. That's why New Dem Immigration and Border Security Working Group members Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.) and Lou Correa (D-Calif.) sat down with Arizona leaders to talk about immigration. They met with industry and union representatives, members of the Arizona business community, and DACA recipients to discuss the importance of immigrants to Arizona's economy. The panel addressed the need to secure our border and pass a long-lasting immigration reform policy. It was instructive. And it showed the folks in these communities that we are listening to them. We know we don't have it all figured out — that's why we need real, local voices to help guide our work. Voices on the ground who are living and breathing these problems every single day. Then, it was my turn. I joined my friends Reps. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) and Wesley Bell (D-Mo.) for a conversation around clean energy and potential opportunities for bipartisan cooperation. We discussed the actions the Trump administration has taken to gut clean energy tax credits. There is no way around it — this is going to have a negative impact on people's utility bills. They will feel this. We also discussed what's ahead — like permitting reform, carbon capture and ultimately ways we can lower costs for people trying to keep the lights on, not raise them. Last month, Reps. Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) and Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) got together to talk one-on-one with Delawareans about paid family and medical leave for working families. This is just the beginning. In total, we'll be conducting at least nine New Dems On the Road events — across the country. We need to come together, share ideas and forge a new path forward. A path that can address the issues that demand our attention: whether it's a single mom struggling to afford child care, a farmer looking to break into new markets, or a family who wants a good, public school education for their kids. We should all be committed to finding effective ways to achieve our shared goals and ensure that the government serves the people better. This isn't a partisan objective; it's a matter of common sense. However, real progress requires thoughtful strategy and careful action, not reckless cuts. Simply slashing budgets without consideration doesn't eliminate waste — it erodes the very foundation of what our government is meant to do: serve its citizens. New Democrats understand this deeply. We recognize that this moment calls for a meaningful response and an agenda that inspires — not the status quo. Our communities have elected us to take action, to solve problems and to improve lives. Now, more than ever, Democrats need to prove we can deliver Nikki Budzinski represents the 13th District of Illinois and is vice chair for policy for the New Dem Coalition. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
