Emails between Pennsylvania lawmakers and lobbyists will remain hidden from the public after court ruling
Spotlight PA is an independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit newsroom producing investigative and public-service journalism that holds power to account and drives positive change in Pennsylvania. Sign up for our free newsletters.
HARRISBURG — Emails and other communications between Pennsylvania lawmakers and the lobbyists who try to influence them will remain hidden from the public, an appellate court has ruled.
The decision last month by a panel of Commonwealth Court judges means the state legislature can continue to shield from public view written interactions they have with the lobbying industry, which spends tens of millions of dollars annually to shape public policy.
Spotlight PA, a statewide nonprofit newsroom that seeks to hold powerful people and institutions accountable, brought the lawsuit. It will not appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court.
Good-government advocates called the ruling a missed opportunity to create more transparency around the inner workings of the state legislature, which has exempted itself from having to disclose many records — including emails — that the executive branch routinely makes public.
'It's a huge missed opportunity because to pull back the curtain on emails between lobbyists and lawmakers would be like pulling back the curtain in The Wizard of Oz,' said Michael Pollack, executive director of March on Harrisburg, which advocates for gift bans and other reforms to make government more accountable.
'The public would see how laws are truly made, and how the system is truly operated,' said Pollack, adding: 'The cozy relationship between lobbyists and lawmakers is assumed by the public, but once you see the details of those relationships, it can be shocking.'
In Pennsylvania, lobbying is a multimillion-dollar business. Lobbyists spent $147.1 million on lobbying in 2023, according to the latest available annual report. That total includes money for gifts, hospitality, transportation, and lodging for state officials or employees, as well as members of their immediate families.
Health care policy topped the list of issues that lobbyists spent that money on, but millions of dollars were also targeted toward influencing energy, education, tax, and transportation policy.
Despite the scale of their spending, lobbyists in Pennsylvania are only required to disclose basic information about their work. They don't, for instance, have to reveal which public officials they lobbied, or how much money they spent lobbying them. They also don't have to reveal which issues they lobbied those public officials for.
The March court ruling caps a long-running public records dispute that began in July 2023, when Spotlight PA requested from the state Senate communications between senators or their staff and lobbyists for a small Pennsylvania municipality that was seeking state grants. The news organization requested the information as part of an investigation into political corruption allegations in the city of DuBois.
State Senate officials swiftly denied Spotlight PA's request, asserting those emails and other communications do not fall under the definition of a legislative record under Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law.
Spotlight PA ultimately appealed the denial to the state's Commonwealth Court.
During oral arguments late last year before a panel of appellate judges, attorneys for the news organization argued that a clause in Pennsylvania's public records law allows public access to communications between lawmakers and lobbyists.
That clause falls under a section of the law that lists records that are exempt from disclosure, including, 'Correspondence between a person and a member of the General Assembly and records accompanying the correspondence which would identify a person that requests assistance or constituent services. This paragraph shall not apply to correspondence between a member of the General Assembly and a principal or lobbyist under 65 Pa.C.S. Ch. 13A (relating to lobbying disclosure).'
Spotlight PA argued that when writing that law, legislators wanted to shield communications between lawmakers and their constituents — but not communications between legislators and lobbyists.
Jim Davy, founder of All Rise Trial & Appellate and one of two lawyers who represented Spotlight PA, cited a floor speech then-state Sen. Jim Ferlo (D., Allegheny) made in 2008 when the legislature passed sweeping upgrades to Pennsylvania's public records law.
At the time, Ferlo said the upgrades would 'make correspondence between legislators and lobbyists public documents.' (Ferlo died in 2022).
'I think,' Ferlo told fellow senators during his floor speech, 'this is certainly a cornerstone piece of legislation in regard to the … organizations that have professional paid lobbyists, the significant role they play in the drafting, formulation, and passage of pieces of legislation in lobbying both Houses of the Capitol.'
Karl S. Myers, a lawyer with Stevens & Lee hired by the state Senate, disagreed.
He argued that Pennsylvania's public records law lists 19 specific categories that constitute a legislative record subject to disclosure. Those categories include financial records and legislative journals, among other documents.
If the legislature intended to include emails and other communications between lawmakers and lobbyists within the definition of a legislative record, it would have expressly done so.
Writing for the majority, Commonwealth Court Judge Stacy Wallace said 'the Senate is required to provide access to 'legislative records' … and 'communications' do not fall within the definition of 'legislative records.''
In a concurring opinion, Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia A. McCullough said she believed the state Senate should have directed Spotlight PA to seek those same records from other government agencies — in this case, the city of DuBois — which may have had access to some of those emails.
In a statement, Spotlight PA CEO and President Chris Baxter said the ruling 'represents a significant setback for government transparency in Pennsylvania, allowing powerful special interests to continue operating in the shadows while spending millions to influence our laws.'
'At Spotlight PA, we're fighting for all 13 million Pennsylvanians who pay for the legislature and who have a right to know who has the ear of their lawmakers, who's actually writing the laws, and what campaign contributions really buy,' he said. 'We'll continue our investigative work to hold power accountable regardless of these barriers to transparency.'
Legislatures across the country have a mixed record when it comes to providing access to emails of its elected members, according to a 2016 analysis by the Associated Press. Several, like Pennsylvania, do not require the legislature to release written communications — although some legislatures nevertheless made certain emails public, despite not being legally required to.
That same discretion exists under Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law. It says an agency may 'exercise its discretion to make any otherwise exempt record accessible for inspection' under certain circumstances, including when an 'agency head determines that the public interest favoring access outweighs any individual, agency or public interest that may favor restriction of access.'
If you learned something from this article, pay it forward and contribute to Spotlight PA at spotlightpa.org/donate. Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability journalism that gets results.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'This is part of the game': Trump cuts out Musk
Donald Trump talked to a long list of media outlets on Friday to make it clear that he's not thinking about or talking to Elon Musk after their feud exploded into public view on Thursday. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court just gave DOGE access to sensitive data held by the Social Security Administration. Michael Steele, Brian Barrett, Nayyera Haq, and Stephen Cloobeck join Stephanie Ruhle for The 11th Hour Nightcap.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Grants Musk-Less DOGE Access to Social Security Data
Elon Musk may be persona non grata at the White House, but DOGE lives on. The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Department of Government Efficiency should be allowed access to Social Security Administration data, lifting a previously issued injunction that blocked the department from doing so. While the court's majority did not provide a detailed explanation of their ruling, they did write, 'We conclude that, under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work.' The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioning the urgency of the application and expressing concerns about the potential privacy risks that would result from the ruling. She wrote, 'In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes.' The Trump administration had previously argued that DOGE employees needed access to SSA data in order to halt fraudulent payments, but a federal judge in Maryland ruled that DOGE being granted such access violated federal law and put millions of people's data at risk. Two unions—the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers—brought the lawsuit alongside the Alliance for Retired Americans. The groups argued that allowing DOGE broader access to individuals' personal data would violate the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. 'The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure—and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it," their lawyers wrote. The data DOGE employees now have access to includes Social Security numbers, medical records, and tax and banking information. In her dissent, Jackson argued that the Supreme Court had 'truly lost its moorings,' by allowing the move and bending its usual standards to accommodate the Trump administration, adding, 'The Court is… unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration.'
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court halts lower court orders requiring DOGE to hand over information about work and personnel
Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday halted lower court orders that required the White House's Department of Government Efficiency to turn over information to a government watchdog group as part of a lawsuit that tests whether President Trump's cost-cutting task force has to comply with federal public records law. The order from the high court clears DOGE for now from having to turn over records related to its work and personnel, and keeps Amy Gleason, identified as its acting administrator, from having to answer questions at a deposition. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. "The portions of the district court's April 15 discovery order that require the government to disclose the content of intra–executive branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored," the court said in its order. "Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade. Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal executive branch communications." The Supreme Court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for more proceedings. Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused the district court's order last month, which allowed the Supreme Court more time to consider the Trump administration's bid for emergency relief. A district judge had ordered DOGE to turn over documents to the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, by June 3, and for Gleason's deposition to be completed by June 13. The underlying issue in the case involves whether DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. CREW argues that the cost-cutting task force wields "substantial independent authority," which makes it a de facto agency that must comply with federal public records law. The Justice Department, however, disagrees and instead claims that DOGE is a presidential advisory body housed within the Executive Office of the President that makes recommendations to the president and federal agencies on matters that are important to Mr. Trump's second-term agenda. DOGE's agency status was not before the Supreme Court, though the high court may be asked to settle that matter in the future. Instead, the Trump administration had asked the justices to temporarily halt a district court's order that allowed CREW to gather certain information from DOGE as part of its effort to determine whether the task force is an advisory panel that is outside FOIA's scope or is an agency that is subject to the records law. The judge overseeing the dispute, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, had ordered DOGE to turn over certain documents to the watchdog group by June 3 and to complete all depositions, including of Gleason, by June 13. Mr. Trump ordered the creation of DOGE on his first day back in the White House as part of his initiative to slash the size of the federal government. Since then, DOGE team members have fanned out to agencies across the executive branch and have been part of efforts to shrink the federal workforce and shutter entities like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Institute of Peace. DOGE has also attempted to gain access to sensitive databases kept by the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration and Office of Personnel Management, prompting legal battles. In an effort to learn more about DOGE's structure and operations, CREW submitted an expedited FOIA request to the task force. After it did not respond in a timely manner, CREW filed a lawsuit and sought a preliminary injunction to expedite processing of its records request. The organization argued that DOGE was exercising significant independent authority, which made it an agency subject to FOIA. Cooper granted CREW's request for a preliminary injunction in March and agreed that FOIA likely applies to DOGE because it is "likely exercising substantial independent authority much greater than other [Executive Office of the President] components held to be covered by FOIA." He then allowed CREW to conduct limited information-gathering, which the watchdog group said aimed to determine whether DOGE is exercising substantial authority that would bring it within FOIA's reach. A federal appeals court ultimately declined to pause that order, requiring DOGE to turn over the documents sought by CREW. In seeking the Supreme Court's intervention, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said CREW is conducting a "fishing expedition" into DOGE's activities. He warned that if Cooper's order remains in place, several components of the White House, such as the offices of the chief of staff and national security adviser, would be subject to FOIA. "That untenable result would compromise the provision of candid, confidential advice to the president and disrupt the inner workings of the Executive Branch," Sauer wrote. "Yet, in the decisions below, the court of appeals and district court treated a presidential advisory body as a potential 'agency' based on the persuasive force of its recommendations — threatening opening season for FOIA requests on the president's advisors." But lawyers for CREW told the Supreme Court in a filing that the Justice Department's position "would require courts to blindly yield to the Executive's characterization" of the authority and operations of a component of the Executive Office of the President. They said adopting the Trump administration's approach to DOGE would give the president "free reign" to create new entities within the Executive Office of the President that exercise substantial independent authority but are shielded from transparency laws. "Courts would be forced to blindly accept the government's representations about an EOP unit's realworld operations, unable to test those representations through even limited discovery," CREW's lawyers wrote. "It is that extreme position, not the discovery order, that would 'turn[] FOIA on its head.'"
