CHEYENNE: Some time ago leaders of the Freedom Caucus far-right wing of the Wyoming Republican Party said transparency was one of their goals.
That’s a good thing.
Yet there is not a complete list of Freedom Caucus members available to the public. The group’s online site lists a number of them, but says others do not want to be identified.
The Freedom Caucus bloc offers the same type of conservatism as the Make America Great movement begun by President Donald Trump, according to Scott Heiner, one of the Wyoming Freedom Caucus leaders.
I do not understand the shyness of these lawmakers in a ruby red state that is overwhelmingly in favor of Trump and MAGA.
It is not as if he or she were a mole who is secretly a member of the AFL-CIO.
It’s OK to “come out” as an Freedom Caucus member, a MAGA, in Wyoming.
Anyway, why do we legislative watchers want the complete list?
Because the Freedom Caucus is in power with a majority in the House, holding at least 26 of the 62 seats.
Because the caucus members tend to vote as a bloc.
Knowing who is who helps to identify bills that have approval from the national office in D.C. or not.
Also, knowing the number of total seats held by the caucus will determine how much clout they will have in deciding which bills can collect the 42 votes needed to meet the two-thirds majority requirement for non-budget bills to even be considered during the next session, which is a budget session.
Recently, veteran legislator Sen. Charles Scott, a Republican rancher from Natrona County, asked a question that long needed to be asked - Is this “a national bill that has been copied?” — according to an account in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle by reporter Noah Zahn.
He was referring to a bill called the “Wyoming Pregnancy Center Autonomy and Rights of Expression Act (CARE) that was before the Joint Interim Labor Health and Social Services Committee.
A staff member of the Legislative Service Office said the bill likely was introduced in several different states.
The chairman of the committee, Rep. Rachel Rodriguez-Willians, R-Cody, who is also chairman of the Freedom Caucus, said she drafted the bill with the LSO staff before she brought it to the 2025 session.
The 2025 bill with the same name — House Bill 273— passed the House but never was considered by the Senate.
Rodriguez-Williams, however, did not directly answer Scott’s question about its origin. Was it her idea?
Scott also questioned the need, constitutionality as well as the political timing, given that bill is controversial and will take up valuable time in the brief budget session.
In short, the bill is silly and unnecessary at this time.
Another committee member, Rep. Mike Yin, a Jackson Democrat, was more precise.
He said the bill, if passed, would be a campaign tool, apparently for the Freedom Caucus.
It will require recorded votes on the bill, as either for or against abortion, which can be used against non-Freedom Caucus candidates in the 2026 elections.
Regardless of its obvious flaws and potential as a campaign tool, the committee passed the bill 10-2. The no votes were from Scott and Yin, two unlikely partners.
This is one bill that definitely is a Freedom Caucus product.
Neither Scott nor Yin are caucus members.
I think some brave lawmaker should try to get a bill through that requires sponsors to identify the source of the bill they are presenting.
In the past a legislator would identify a bill as “a governor’s bill,” and often had more than one. He was said to be “carrying the governor’s water.”
The genesis of other bills was unknown, although you could assume a bill decreasing a tax on coal came from industry, not the Powder River Basin Resource Council.
At least these were Wyoming bills for Wyoming problems.
Bills cooked up in D.C. were not welcome.
Transparency still means open. It is important.
——————————————————————————
Contact Joan Barron at 307-632-2534 or jmbarron@bresnan.net
