By John Q. Hosedrinker 
California lawmakers have unanimously passed a bill, AB 1370, that prohibits them from signing non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) when making decisions about taxpayer funds or creating state laws. This legislation was prompted by reports of NDAs being used to conceal details of the $1.1 billion Capital Annex project and during negotiations for the fast-food labor law, including an exemption for bakeries. While the bill marks a step toward transparency, it is limited to lawmakers and does not restrict the use of NDAs by lobbyists or the Governor’s office. The bill has now advanced to the State Senate for further consideration.
Read the original article here
California Senate passes bill that makes it a crime for lawmakers to sign NDAs. Honestly, I’m a bit surprised by this, and in a good way! The fact that politicians could even *consider* signing NDAs for this long feels like a glaring oversight. It’s rare to see those in power actively restrict their ability to engage in potentially shady behavior, so this feels like a genuine win, not just for California, but for the overall health of the political system. NDAs protecting the wealthy and powerful is an easy narrative to get behind.
The concept of NDAs, non-disclosure agreements, is straightforward. They are essentially used to prevent the sharing of sensitive information. Companies might use them to protect proprietary information from competitors, like trade secrets. But when it comes to politicians, signing an NDA that could potentially limit their ability to serve the public, or even worse, cover up illegal actions, is completely unacceptable. That’s where things get complicated. NDAs should be used as a shield, not as a weapon.
This is a crucial step in preventing corruption. I can’t stress enough that these agreements shouldn’t be allowed to hinder a lawmaker’s public duties. I do understand the argument regarding the First Amendment; that’s a fundamental right, but it doesn’t give you the absolute right to say anything without consequence. The 1st Amendment only protects you from the government preventing you from speaking. NDAs aren’t about restricting your right to speech; they’re about the consequences of sharing specific information, usually confidential. In the real world, it’s a matter of costs and power.
The implications of this bill could be significant. Think about situations where lawmakers might be privy to information that should be public knowledge. The passage of this bill might deter companies from working with lawmakers. A company building factories might want NDAs to protect themselves. This bill doesn’t prevent the government from using NDAs for classified information, for example, but it does stop the abuse of them. This is especially important for national security.
The government also uses NDAs for classified information. It can also be used to silence discussion about a fully legal but less than agreeable topic. Lots of creative, unethical *but very legal* ways to use them. This is right. However, there are grey areas where, the information may be indicative of breaking a law or reputationally damaging, but the other side can still come after the signator and tie them up in legal proceedings. This is because it’s most often easier to show an NDA was broken than show that the actual information is indicating an illegal action or intent. Now do stocks and donations, so they’re no longer a conflict of interest.
I can see why people are concerned about blanket bans, though. NDAs can be legitimate in certain situations, like in civil lawsuits or when protecting trade secrets. However, the potential for abuse, especially in the political arena, is too great to ignore.
The California State Senate has a supermajority, and this bill is just the first step. This case in Tucson AZ is important. It shows how NDAs have been abused in the past. What is so balls to the wall proprietary about that Tucson data center that its mere EXISTENCE requires legislators to sign NDAs?
When you’re dealing with settlements, NDAs make sense. If a person is legitimately injured at one of their parks and agrees to a settlement, that settlement often includes a NDA so others don’t attempt a similar but illegitimate suit. If people can keep badmouthing you in public without proving it in court, since you settled, that leaves you open to not ending the dispute. I’m glad it got passed. Given the current political climate, it’s great this bill has got through the Senate.