Bill Description: House Bill 865 would limit free speech and communication between certain individuals and members and employees of the Public Utilities Commission, restrict lobbying, and impose penalties.
Rating: -3
Does it in any way restrict public access to information related to government activity or otherwise compromise government transparency, accountability, or election integrity? Conversely, does it increase public access to information related to government activity or increase government transparency, accountability, or election integrity?
House Bill 865 would amend Section 61-207, Idaho Code, by adding a lengthy subsection restricting free speech and communication between certain individuals and members and employees of the Public Utilities Commission.
It would say, “No commissioner, or any person employed by the commission, shall, directly or indirectly, solicit, invite, encourage, or consider any communication from any person concerning the merits of any matter pending before the commission or reasonably expected to come before the commission, unless such communication is made in the course of an official proceeding or is reduced to writing and made a part of the records of the commission.”
While commissioners have certain responsibilities under Idaho’s public records law, this bill would set a dangerous precedent of cutting off all forms of casual or spontaneous communication between certain officials and the public at large. Even something as simple as a concerned citizen approaching a commissioner in a public setting and offering an unsolicited opinion on a relevant matter could fall under the scope of this law, and the commissioner would be legally enjoined from even considering the opinion that had been expressed.
(-1)
Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the United States Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the US Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?
The bill would also attempt to prohibit lobbying, saying, “No public utility or agent thereof, party appearing before the commission, lobbyist registered pursuant to chapter 7, title 74, Idaho Code, representing a public utility, or attorney representing a public utility shall, directly or indirectly, make any communication to any commissioner, or any person employed by the commission, concerning the merits of any matter pending before the commission or reasonably expected to come before the commission, unless such communication is made in the course of an official proceeding or is reduced to writing and made a part of the records of the commission.”
While this provision is related to the one addressed above, the prohibitions contained in this subsection are imposed not on members and employees of the Public Utilities Commission, but on public utilities and their agents, lobbyists, and attorneys. Lobbying, in particular, is constitutionally protected free speech, and attempting to prohibit lobbyists from speaking to certain officials is a limitation on both market activity and free speech.
Of note, the Idaho Constitution is even more unambiguous on free speech than is the U.S. Constitution, saying, “Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.”
Every person. Even lobbyists and attorneys. All subjects. Even matters pending before the Public Utilities Commission.
(-1)
Does it directly or indirectly create or increase penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes? Conversely, does it eliminate or decrease penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes?
The bill would grant the attorney general or the appropriate prosecuting attorney authority to “prosecute any violations of this subsection” and impose civil penalties of $250 for individuals and $2,500 for a person other than an individual.
(-1)
