Sunshine Week is an opportunity to celebrate transparency in government. Unfortunately, this year we once again observe it by pointing out major shortcomings in open government—starting with the Massachusetts Legislature’s continued refusal to practice it.
Voters spoke clearly in 2024: they want the State Auditor to audit the Legislature. Yet Senate and House leadership continue to barricade themselves and their records inside the State House, hiding their operations from public scrutiny and defying the will of the people they represent.
This resistance goes beyond the Legislature itself. When the Auditor sought permission from a single justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to hire outside counsel to represent her in the legal effort to carry out the audit, that request was rebuffed.
As former Justice Robert Cordy pointed out, “A party to any lawsuit, no matter how small, has the right to be represented by an attorney of their choice.” Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi put the real issue bluntly: “This fight is, first, about power. House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka want to retain every drop of theirs.”
An audit should not be controversial—it should be routine. In 2025 alone, the Legislature spent $94 million in taxpayer funds. Lawmakers work for the public, and the public deserves to know how spending decisions are made and how their government operates.
If there is truly nothing to hide, then there is no reason to keep the curtains drawn. It’s time for the Massachusetts Legislature to respect the voters and allow the audit.
These are our top government transparency recommendations for 2026:
#1 -Allow the State Auditor to audit the Massachusetts State Legislature
In 2024, Massachusetts voters spoke loudly and clearly: they want the State Auditor to conduct an audit of the Legislature. Yet Beacon Hill leaders refuses to comply, hiding behind flimsy constitutional arguments to avoid even the most basic scrutiny.
Let’s be clear about what an audit actually does. The Auditor cannot force lawmakers to change policies or dictate how the Legislature operates. She can only review practices and make recommendations. That’s transparency—not control.
Lawmakers work for us. The public deserves to know how decisions are made and how their money is spent. A government of, by, and for the people should not fear sunlight.
Massachusetts voters have already spoken. The only remaining question is why the Legislature refuses to listen.
#2 -Subject the Massachusetts Legislature to the state’s public records and open meeting laws
The Massachusetts Legislature continues to carve out special rules for itself, exempting its operations from state transparency laws. While most every other public body must follow public records and open meeting laws, Beacon Hill lawmakers have simply declared that those rules don’t apply to them.
Those exemptions are not just bad policy—we believe they violate the state Constitution. Article V of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights makes clear that the branches of government must be accountable to the people “at all times.” Yet the legislature continues to operate behind closed doors, shielding meetings and records from the very public it serves.
When lawmakers write transparency laws but refuse to live by them, accountability disappears and public trust erodes. Restricting access to legislative meetings and records doesn’t just weaken transparency—it defies the basic principle that government answers to the people.
The Constitution promises accountability “at all times.” It’s time for the Legislature to start providing it.
#3 -Lawmakers should make access to Statements of Financial Interests anonymous, easier to access and more meaningful
Among the 49 states that require Statements of Financial Interest (SFIs), Massachusetts ranks dead last in making that information accessible to the public. That’s a stunning failure of transparency.
SFIs exist for a simple reason: to give the public confidence that legislators and policymakers are acting in the public interest, not their own. Yet Massachusetts places barriers in the way of anyone who tries to see the documents. Residents must show a photo ID just to request an SFI, and their identity is then reported to the very official whose finances they’re trying to examine. That’s not transparency—it’s intimidation designed to discourage scrutiny and keep financial details out of public view.
The disclosures themselves are nearly meaningless. Asset values are reported in outdated brackets that haven’t been updated since 1978, when the law first took effect. Back then, the average household income was under $20,000 and the typical home was worth about $48,400. Yet today, the highest category on an SFI for home value is still “greater than $100,000.” In 2026, that tells the public almost nothing.
As a result, residents are left in the dark about potential conflicts of interest and financial incentives that may shape—or stall—legislation. That’s unacceptable in a state that prides itself on good government.
Massachusetts can and should do better. The public deserves meaningful financial disclosure: SFIs that reflect modern economic realities and that are available online, anonymously, in searchable and downloadable formats—just as they are in most other states.
If Beacon Hill is serious about rebuilding public trust, it should start with something simple: let the public see the financial interests of the people who govern them.
#4 – Reject Public Records Exemptions for Executive & Judicial Officials
Few citizens have heard of Lambert v. Executive Director of the Judicial Nominating Council, but this 1997 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling has been interpreted by governors and members of the judiciary alike as exempting the executive office and the judiciary from public records law. As a result, all public records requests to the Governor’s Office are fulfilled “at the office’s discretion.” The new administration has a valuable opportunity to make clear that it serves the public interest all the time, not just at the office’s “discretion.”
The next administration and judicial branch management should make their records public.
#5 – Require Financial Impact Analyses Before Bills Pass
Creating an office within the Inspector General’s office—or another independent body—to objectively evaluate the fiscal impact of legislation would strengthen decision-making, accountability, and public trust. Any bill expected to cost or generate more than $5 million should undergo an independent analysis before moving forward.
This office would monitor pending legislation and determine when a formal fiscal review is required. Its analyses should clearly outline projected costs or revenues, the assumptions used, and the methodology behind the estimates.
Just as important, these findings should be made public. Each analysis should be posted promptly on the office’s website, in the same transparent manner that the Congressional Budget Office releases its reports. Providing lawmakers and the public with clear, independent fiscal assessments would promote more responsible policymaking and help ensure that major legislative proposals are evaluated on the basis of credible financial information.
Pioneer’s Poll on Government Transparency
And we are not the only ones down on the Legislature these days. A new poll commissioned by Pioneer Institute finds that an overwhelming majority of Massachusetts adults believe that government transparency is extremely important to realizing the ideals of democracy, and that the Legislature in particular, is falling far short on that front. The Legislature’s favorability rating landed at a meager 28 percent. Explore the poll here.
Pioneer Transparency in the Media
“Unlike most state legislatures, the Massachusetts Legislature has exempted itself from public records law.”
- The Boston Globe Opinion
Visit US DataLabs: How does your state compare?
Our goal is to give you the tools to compare the performance of the 50 states and use these insights to challenge the status quo in your own state. By exploring a range of rankings, we aim to help you ask pointed questions of public leaders and hold elected officials accountable for progress. If one state outperforms yours in key areas, you have the right—and perhaps the obligation—to demand improvement over time. Visit USDataLabs.org.
