{"id":1966,"date":"2026-06-20T03:07:31","date_gmt":"2026-06-20T03:07:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/humanitystories.pics\/?p=1966"},"modified":"2026-06-20T03:07:31","modified_gmt":"2026-06-20T03:07:31","slug":"californians-could-be-sued-charged-66-per-hour-for-asking-questions-of-state-government-under-crazy-new-bill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/humanitystories.pics\/?p=1966","title":{"rendered":"Californians could be sued, charged $66 per hour for asking questions of state government under crazy new bill"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n
\n

Transparency advocates are enraged over a sneaky change to\u00a0a California bill<\/a>\u00a0that would make it harder to get details on what government agencies are doing \u2014 and could even haul people seeking public records to court.<\/p>\n

News publishers and other First Amendment supporters had already opposed Assembly Bill 1821 by\u00a0Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco (D)<\/a>, which initially just sought to extend the timeline for when government entities, such as city halls or state agencies, needed to respond to a request for public records.<\/p>\n

\n
\"Aerial3<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/div>
A bill in California is drawing fire from government transparency advocates.Getty Images<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

But Pacheco adjusted her measure so that steep fees can be charged for the time staff spends to find publicly available records: an administrative fee of $22.35 per hour and a \u201cprofessional fee\u201d of $66.26 per hour, both subject to cost-of-living increases.<\/p>\n

Not only that, under the newest version of the bill, if a government believes the record requester has \u201cmalicious intent,\u201d it can ask a court to make that determination and put the request on hold pending a court decision.<\/p>\n

The pro-free speech nonprofit First Amendment Coalition blasted the new language and claimed obtaining government records would cost much more. Currently, agencies may generally only charge for copying costs.<\/p>\n