Figure 1: States ranked on seven key attributes on accessing Statements of Financial Interest (SFIs)
Figure 1 shows a state-level index of requirements for citizens to access SFIs filed by all elected officials, which disclose the officials’ personal financial interests. Massachusetts ranks as the least transparent state according to these metrics, earning points only for posting the SFIs online in an electronically searchable format. Beyond these basic criteria, the Commonwealth creates substantial barriers for residents seeking access, including requiring individuals to log in with a valid ID to obtain them and informing the SFI filer of who viewed them.
In fact, the easiest way to view these SFIs is through a website created by a private citizen, who compiled all the SFIs so individuals could access them more easily. This deliberate obstruction raises serious questions about why Massachusetts impedes public access to records designed specifically to provide legislative accountability.
The state received an F grade from Open States’ 2013 Legislative Data Report Card and a D rating from The Center for Public Integrity in 2015, marking it as one of the least transparent legislatures in the country. These poor ratings reflect systemic issues that extend beyond the Legislature itself, as Massachusetts is the only state where all three branches of government consider themselves exempt from its public records laws, creating secrecy around operations at the State House. The Legislature further compounds this problem by refusing to follow open meeting laws—meaning legislative meetings do not need to be open to the public, and meeting minutes are not required to be recorded and made public.
The transparency crisis deepened during the Covid-19 pandemic when the Massachusetts State House remained closed to the public for over 700 days, significantly longer than nearly every other state. Together, these factors have contributed to public calls for reform over the lack of transparency at the State House.
In response to well-documented transparency failures, Massachusetts voters have increasingly pushed back against these practices. Most notably, over 70 percent of voters approved a recent ballot measure allowing the state auditor to audit the Legislature—a clear demand for accountability. Yet the Legislature has made virtually no progress on implementing this audit, arguing it would compromise the independence of the executive and legislative branches
This resistance follows a troubling pattern of legislative defiance of voter mandates. In 2000, Massachusetts residents approved a ballot measure to roll back the state income tax rate from 5.95 percent to 5 percent, but the Legislature delayed implementation for almost two decades, finally reducing the rate to 5 percent in 2020. This 20-year obstruction of a clear voter directive only reinforces the image of the Massachusetts Legislature as one of the least transparent in the nation.
Committee meetings have long represented perhaps the most critical transparency failure in Massachusetts government, as this is where the vast majority of legislative decisions are made. Historically, when bills died in committee, as most do, there was no record of who voted to kill the bill as well as no reason given why it was killed.
However Massachusetts adopted new joint rules on June 26th that require committee attendance and voting records to be recorded and posted online, as well as requiring committees to provide a plan to make written testimony publicly available.
Any changes that encourage legislative transparency and accountability are much needed, but it will be equally important to observe whether these rules are consistently followed. Given Massachusetts’s documented history of delaying voter-approved measures and finding ways to circumvent transparency requirements, the true test will be whether these new rules translate into meaningful public access or become just another example of symbolic reform without substantive change.
Andrew Harding is a Roger Perry Government Transparency Intern with the Pioneer Institute. He is a rising senior at Connecticut College, with a double major in Government and Educational Studies. Feel free to contact via email, LinkedIn, or writing a letter to Pioneer’s office.
