Is Democratic Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco Secretly MAGA? Her Public Records Bill Sure Acts Like It

If you had told me a year ago that a California Democrat would introduce legislation that transparency advocates say could make California "the most secretive state in the country," I would have assumed the bill came from a Trump rally merchandise booth.

Yet here we are.

Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco's AB 1821 is the kind of legislation that makes government bureaucrats smile and citizens reach for their wallets. Under the proposal, Californians seeking public records could find themselves paying fees for the government's time spent searching and reviewing records, and agencies could even seek penalties against people they claim submitted requests with "malicious intent."

The rationale, according to Pacheco, is that public records requests are becoming expensive and time-consuming for government agencies.

Interesting.

By that logic, perhaps we should eliminate elections. After all, elections are expensive too.

Imagine President Donald Trump making the argument:

"Folks, elections cost billions. The ballots, the workers, the counting, the recounting, the lawsuits. Very expensive. The most expensive. So let's save taxpayers money and just make me president forever."

Most Californians would recognize that argument immediately for what it is: an attack on a fundamental democratic right disguised as fiscal responsibility.

Yet that is precisely the intellectual framework behind AB 1821.

Public records are not a luxury item. They are not a premium streaming service. They are not courtside seats at a Lakers game.

They are a constitutional right.

The California Constitution explicitly guarantees public access to government information. The principle is simple: Government records belong to the public because the government works for the public.

Apparently Pacheco believes the public should now rent access to its own property.

What's next?

A cover charge to attend city council meetings?

A subscription fee to read government budgets?

Five dollars to ask your elected officials a question?

Perhaps a California Poll Tax Modernization Act.

Voting is expensive too, after all.

The beauty of AB 1821 is that it solves a government inconvenience by transferring the burden directly onto citizens. Government agencies struggle with records requests? Make citizens pay. Agencies don't like persistent requesters? Let them accuse people of being "malicious." Transparency becomes a privilege for those who can afford it.

It's a remarkably Trumpian solution.

The bill's defenders say it only targets abusive requests. That's comforting until one remembers that governments routinely label uncomfortable scrutiny as burdensome. Journalists investigating police misconduct are burdensome. Citizens examining questionable contracts are burdensome. Community activists seeking embarrassing emails are burdensome.

Government officials have never met a public records request they didn't think would be easier if it simply disappeared.

The First Amendment Coalition warns that the bill would chill public oversight and make it harder for ordinary Californians to learn what their government is doing. Transparency advocates argue California could become one of the most secretive states in the nation if these provisions become law.

That should alarm every Californian regardless of political affiliation.

Republicans should oppose it.

Democrats should oppose it.

Independents should oppose it.

Anyone who has ever wondered what their government is doing should oppose it.

Which brings us back to the obvious question.

Is Blanca Pacheco secretly MAGA?

Probably not.

But if Donald Trump himself had proposed charging citizens for access to public records, threatening requesters with lawsuits, and erecting new barriers to government transparency, California Democrats would be denouncing it as authoritarianism before the ink dried on the press release.

The irony is that when the same idea comes wrapped in Democratic packaging and bureaucratic language, we're apparently supposed to call it modernization.

No.

It's not modernization.

It's monetization of a constitutional right.