Michigan committee advances bills banning lawmakers from signing NDAs in legislative capacity

The House Committee on Government Operations on Thursday voted unanimously to advance two bills that would prohibit lawmakers and their legislative staffs from signing non‑disclosure agreements in their official legislative capacity.

Representatives Kara Cara and (Representative) Wegela, sponsors of House Bills 4052 and 4053, urged the committee to approve the measures. Representative Cara called the proposal "very common sense bipartisan legislation" and said it "simply says that we should not be signing non disclosure agreements in our legislative capacity." Representative Wegela said the bill "is fundamental to the work we do here in the legislature and to our constitutional republic," arguing NDAs can "silence our ability to communicate the actions of the legislature with their constituents."

The bills were discussed primarily as transparency measures tied to economic development negotiations involving the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC). Michael Lefebvre of the Mackinac Center, testifying in support, argued the practice has made state dealings "aggressively less transparent" and said NDAs "deprive voters and taxpayers of opportunities to air concerns about particular state spending." Lefebvre also drew the committee's attention to Article IV, Section 11 of the Michigan Constitution, quoting that members "shall not be questioned in any other place for any speech in either house." Gabriel Dressner of the ACLU registered support by card; Dressner did not speak on the record.

Committee members asked for clarifications about the bills' scope. Representative Fitzgerald said NDAs are commonly used in private industry to protect proprietary information and asked what types of information the bills would bar lawmakers from receiving. Sponsors and other members responded that trade secrets and other sensitive commercial details could be handled directly between companies and private contractors without involving legislative disclosure, and that the bills are focused on agreements that interfere with a member's ability to communicate about legislative matters. Committee members also discussed whether employment‑related confidentiality agreements for non‑legislative HR or general counsel staff would be affected; sponsors and committee members said those categories are not the bill's intended target and that the language focuses on a "member's legislative capacity." One sponsor recommended seeking an opinion from legal counsel if members want a narrower statutory definition.

On procedural votes, the committee adopted an H‑1 substitute for HB 4052 by roll call and then voted 5‑0 to report HB 4052 as substituted. Representative Harris made the motion to report HB 4052 as substituted; the clerk recorded five yays, zero nays. Representative VanderWaal moved to report HB 4053; the committee voted 5‑0 to report HB 4053 with recommendation. The clerk recorded five yays, zero nays for that motion as well.

The measures now move forward in the legislative process after being reported by the committee. No amendments to the bills were adopted during the hearing and no formal legal definitions beyond the bill text were resolved on the record.

Ending: Committee members did not indicate a timeline for further floor action; committee staff and sponsors suggested members may seek additional legal clarification on the phrase "legislative capacity."