Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill that would bar agencies from using the word “free” to describe taxpayer‑funded services
Summary
House Bill 182, sponsored by Representative Deanna Frazier Gordon, would prohibit government agencies from describing taxpayer‑funded services as "free" in promotional language; the committee approved the measure 17‑3 after members debated wording, enforcement and First Amendment concerns.
The House Committee on State Government reported House Bill 182 favorably to the House floor by a 17‑3 vote. The bill, sponsored by Representative Deanna Frazier Gordon of Madison County, would prohibit government promotional language from using the word "free" to describe services paid for with taxpayer funds and would require alternative phrasing that credits taxpayers.
"No government program is actually free. The taxpayer always pays," Frazier Gordon told the committee, describing the bill as a transparency measure that would not change program allocations, benefits or eligibility.
Members queried enforcement, outreach and the practical effects on communications. Representative Watkins asked for suggested alternative wording; Frazier Gordon said agencies could use phrases such as "provided at no cost" or "paid for by taxpayers." Watkins also asked whether the bill included penalties; the sponsor acknowledged the current draft does not include enforcement penalties and said compliance would rely on agency reporting or self‑compliance.
Representative Donworth, who said he has nonprofit and public‑private partnership experience, urged caution about removing a simple word that low‑income or low‑literacy residents easily recognize; he said outreach clarity matters for people who most need services and volunteered to work with the sponsor on language. Representative Layman asked for examples; the sponsor cited library programs, free lunches and no‑cost trainings as uses she has seen on agency websites and materials.
Another member raised a First Amendment concern, saying singling out a single word and legislating its use could raise constitutional free‑speech questions; that member said acknowledging taxpayers is reasonable, but expressed concern about prescribing specific words by statute.
After discussion, the committee voted 17 in favor and 3 opposed to report HB 182 out of committee with a favorable recommendation to the House floor.
