My issue with this approach is that those senators or whatever level of representatives won't be punished by doing so. A common technique I observed these years

My issue with this approach is that those senators or whatever level of representatives won't be punished by doing so. A common technique I observed these years is that they will initially propose a shooting-for-moon bill/bylaws/regulations, then everyone gets concerned and asks them to undo it. They will tone down and pretend to listen to the public, but counter-argue with some "authoritative" proofs given by certain professors or whatever scholars/lawyers/domain experts (often bought out by the same lobby group), then they concede with lesser intrusive proposal but still achieve their hidden goal. They will always look calm and charming, that on the contrary makes the angry public look irrational and ignorant. Most of the time, they can get away as the winner. Even if they didn't pull it off, they didn't lose anything. It is like they are playing an "I'm not touching you" trick to the public. If you follow the recent Internet UBB issue in Canada, you will see how it pans out. Nobody in CRTC is going to resign for doing such a ploy.