Transparency TAX Hits California

California Republic flag waving alongside the American flag against a blue sky — Photo: Karolis Kavolelis / Shutterstock

California Democrats are pushing a records bill that lets government charge up to $66 an hour and drag requesters into court over so‑called “malicious” requests.

Story Snapshot

New California bill AB 1821 adds hourly labor fees on many public records requests and stretches response deadlines.
Agencies could ask a judge to label a requester “malicious,” pause the request, and then bill hourly fees if the court agrees.
Most ordinary citizens would face new costs, while journalists, academics, and government insiders get exemptions.
Transparency advocates warn the plan guts long‑standing open records protections that were meant to be low cost or free.

What AB 1821 Would Let California Agencies Do To Requesters

Assembly Bill 1821 is a proposal from Democrat Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco that rewrites key parts of the California Public Records Act to add new limits, costs, and delay tools for government agencies.^[2] Under current law, agencies can charge only the direct cost of making copies, not for searching, reviewing, or redacting records.^[6] AB 1821 would flip that rule by allowing agencies to bill hourly labor fees when they decide a request is for “commercial use,” and by adding a special fee power if a court finds “malicious intent.”^[2]^[4]

Bill summaries and the text show that agencies could charge an hourly “administrative fee” and a higher “professional fee” for time spent searching and reviewing records.^[2]^[4] Reporting on the measure says the ranges being discussed are about $22 per hour for administrative time and up to $66 per hour for professional work like lawyer review or technical staff review.^[4] Those fees would stack on top of any per‑page copy cost, turning what was once a low‑cost oversight tool into something that could run hundreds or thousands of dollars for a large request.^[1]^[4]

How The Bill Uses “Commercial” And “Malicious” Labels To Raise Costs

The bill creates a new category called a “commercial use request,” which allows agencies to charge those hourly search and review fees when officials decide the requester is furthering “commercial, trade, or profit interests,” language borrowed from federal records law.^[2]^[4] In theory, AB 1821 exempts some groups from these fees, including journalists, educational and noncommercial scientific institutions, and government agencies.^[2] In practice, that means ordinary citizens, small businesses, and many watchdog groups could be stuck paying the highest rates while insiders and favored institutions get a pass.^[2]^[4]

AB 1821 also gives agencies a legal weapon against people they claim are abusing the system. The bill authorizes a government agency to petition superior court for a ruling that a requester acted with “malicious intent.”^[2] During that court fight, the agency’s duty to respond is suspended, so the records are effectively frozen.^[2] If the judge agrees the request was malicious, the requester must pay the agency’s hourly search and review fees as an extra condition for getting the records, on top of any other lawful charges.^[2]^[4] Critics warn this invites retaliation against persistent citizens who dig too deeply into local corruption or waste.

Longer Waits, Tighter Channels, And What Changes From Today’s Rules

Existing California law generally requires agencies to decide what records are disclosable within 10 calendar days and allows a limited 14‑day extension in unusual cases.^[7] AB 1821 would move that standard to 10 and 14 business days for notice and extensions, stretching possible wait times and turning weekends and holidays into dead space.^[2]^[4] The proposal also lets agencies narrow how requests can be filed by forcing people to use a specific physical office and a designated email address, with any other “reasonable” methods left to the agency’s discretion.^[2] Transparency advocates argue this gives bureaucrats more tools to delay or reject requests they do not like.^[4]

These changes matter because California’s open records system was designed to be simple and low cost. Guides from the League of California Cities and the First Amendment Coalition stress that agencies cannot charge for searching, reviewing, or redacting records, and that people should be able to inspect records for free and even copy them with their own phones.^[6]^[6] Courts have backed that principle, warning that labor fees undermine the public’s constitutional right to know what government is doing.^[4]^[6] AB 1821 cuts against that settled understanding by moving core costs from government onto the citizen who dares to ask questions.

Why Critics Call AB 1821 A Threat To Transparency And Everyday Citizens

News outlets, open government lawyers, and civil liberties groups are lining up against the bill, warning it “would allow public agencies to delay records requests it deems ‘improperly’ filed, sue for ‘malicious’ requests and charge up to $66 an hour to produce government records.”^[4] One good‑government advocate described the package as a “virtual horror show of governmental non‑transparency.”^[4] They argue the mix of hourly fees, vague “commercial” and “malicious” labels, and longer deadlines will chill the public from filing requests at all, especially lower‑income residents, small businesses, and grassroots activists.^[4]^[5]

Is anyone else watching what’s happening in Sacramento right now? The hypocrisy is honestly unreal.
Right now, Gavin Newsom is using taxpayer-funded staff to file aggressive federal FOIA requests demanding the DOJ hand over records about the investigations into him and his wife.… pic.twitter.com/GhlyMLQbFr

— Mike Netter (@nettermike) June 20, 2026

Supporters, including the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties, call AB 1821 a “practical update” that manages “high‑cost, resource‑intensive requests” and protects staff from harassment.^[3]^[7] But nothing in the bill sets a strict cap on hourly rates or clearly defines how agencies must judge what is “commercial,” “improperly filed,” or “malicious,” leaving wide room for abuse.^[2]^[4]^[7] For Californians who care about holding one‑party rule accountable—on crime, schools, spending, or elections—this fight is about whether government records remain a right of citizenship or become a pay‑to‑play privilege.