This story originally appeared on Spotlight PA.

Every year, thousands of officials in state government must fill out reports by May 1 that disclose their sources of income, creditors, and business interests, as well as any gifts, hospitality, or other perks they accepted.

Those reports, called statements of financial interest, are then made publicly searchable and available online. The forms are a key way for the public to gain a deeper understanding of their elected officials’ financial ties, as well as discover which outside groups may be trying to influence public policy decisions.

Pennsylvania’s judges, however, play by somewhat different rules.

Though they too must file annual disclosures, theirs aren’t posted online. The public must ask for copies — provided they know where to go for that information.

Some good-government advocates say this creates an unnecessary inconvenience for anyone trying to quickly access fundamental information about Pennsylvania’s judiciary, a critical branch of government with great power over civil and criminal matters.

“Judges are public officials, and there are many special interests trying to influence the courts,” said Michael Pollack, executive director of March On Harrisburg, a group that pushes for transparency in government, as well as a ban on gifts to elected officials.

“When you erect barriers, you are denying access,” he said.

Stacey Witalec, spokesperson for the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, did not answer a question about why the courts do not post financial interest statements for judges online. “While not posted on our website, the Court makes the statements of financial interest available upon request,” she said in an email.

She did not elaborate.

Statements of financial interest are at their core a tool to increase public trust in government. But they also can act as deterrents, the thinking being that disclosure makes it less likely a public official will engage in any conflicts of interest. The importance of a robust reporting system was amplified following media investigations last year that revealed several U.S. Supreme Court justices had not disclosed certain gifts and travel.