6 ms·

Call it what you like but the FCC decision-making is not democracy. They are at least three steps removed from the voters, write their own regulations, and are

Call it what you like but the FCC decision-making is not democracy. They are at least three steps removed from the voters, write their own regulations, and are not really accountable to voters. This is part of the independent agency problem in our scheme of governance. The better system would be for the elected legislature to actually write regulations. That's representative democracy rather than democracy but closer to accountability.

SoftTalker 3y ago
The elected legislature doesn't have the expertise to write regulations in highly technical areas. Or really almost any areas, but certainly not the sorts of stuff that the FCC, FAA, SEC, etc. regulates. The representative democracy happens with their confirmation of the agency heads appointed by the executive branch.
- agensaequivocum 3y ago
  If the legislature cannot write it, then the law or force of law shouldn't exist.
  - dumpsterlid 3y ago
    [dead]
  - Spivak 3y ago
    I think you're right in a broad sense but this is the least bad situation. Because the alternative is that no laws that require expertise ever get passed or worse, legislators rubber stamp laws they don't really understand written by people in industry.
- golemotron 3y ago
  > The elected legislature doesn't have the expertise to write regulations in highly technical areas. People with backgrounds in science and engineering can't run for Congress?
  - diffeomorphism 3y ago
    A background is not sufficient and people should be humble enough to know when to take advice. That is not to say they should not be familiar with subjects, but relying on one person to write regulations for whole sectors is bound to lead to problems.
    - golemotron 3y ago
      Experts can write them but representatives should be on the record voting for or against them.
      - diffeomorphism 3y ago
        Sure.
- flanked-evergl 3y ago
  > The elected legislature doesn't have the expertise to write regulations in highly technical areas. For the most part the regulatory agencies don't have the expertise either. It is almost all political in every country where I have ever lived, and most EU tech regulations is also absolute garbage.
dpierce9 3y ago
Independent agencies are completely accountable to congress. The idea that they are unaccountable is nonsense. They can only ever do things in the bounds of what congress has said they can do. Congress can change what is allowed at any time. Your proposal is to give congress the authority to write regulations without independent agencies. I got news for you, congress already has that power! They created the agencies because they recognized their limitations when it comes to creating regulations that require technical expertise and/or detailed particulars. Congress can also pass a law nullifying ANY existing agency regulations or, in the extreme, dissolving the agency. If a regulatory agency interprets a law one way, congress can pass a law saying that isn’t what we meant, stop doing that, do it this way instead. This is perfect accountability. If congress can’t do those things, how do you expect them to write effective regulation? What more do you want?
- Spivak 3y ago
  It might be perfect accountability [1] but under this supreme court it might be found unconstitutional. It's not actually clear whether congress is allowed delegate their power to another branch of government. In fact if you take the constitution in context with the British law it was inspired by it's explicitly prohibited. It's already something that has been legally contentious, overturning it has textualist support, and the textualists justices are also broadly Republican who want a weakened federal government. [1] I mean not really perfect since they have to pass legislation to make those changes and it's easier to block legislation than to pass it. So a minority party in congress with presidential support can (and has) wielded undue legislative power.
  - golemotron 3y ago
    > In fact if you take the constitution in context with the British law it was inspired by it's explicitly prohibited. Can you say more about this? It sounds very interesting.
    - Clubber 3y ago
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference In Chevron, the Supreme Court set forth a legal test as to when the court should defer to the agency’s answer or interpretation, holding that such judicial deference is appropriate where the agency’s answer was not unreasonable, so long as Congress had not spoken directly to the precise issue at question. This is the SCOTUS ruling that gave administration so much power in 1984, so it's relatively new. The validity of it is currently being heard in: https://cooleypubco.com/2023/05/11/chevron-deference-case-fishing/ https://cooleypubco.com/2023/05/11/chevron-deference-case-fi... I hope it goes away.

SoftTalker 3y ago

The elected legislature doesn't have the expertise to write regulations in highly technical areas. Or really almost any areas, but certainly not the sorts of stuff that the FCC, FAA, SEC, etc. regulates. The representative democracy happens with their confirmation of the agency heads appointed by the executive branch.

agensaequivocum 3y ago
If the legislature cannot write it, then the law or force of law shouldn't exist.
- dumpsterlid 3y ago
  [dead]
- Spivak 3y ago
  I think you're right in a broad sense but this is the least bad situation. Because the alternative is that no laws that require expertise ever get passed or worse, legislators rubber stamp laws they don't really understand written by people in industry.
golemotron 3y ago
> The elected legislature doesn't have the expertise to write regulations in highly technical areas. People with backgrounds in science and engineering can't run for Congress?
- diffeomorphism 3y ago
  A background is not sufficient and people should be humble enough to know when to take advice. That is not to say they should not be familiar with subjects, but relying on one person to write regulations for whole sectors is bound to lead to problems.
  - golemotron 3y ago
    Experts can write them but representatives should be on the record voting for or against them.
    - diffeomorphism 3y ago
      Sure.
flanked-evergl 3y ago
> The elected legislature doesn't have the expertise to write regulations in highly technical areas. For the most part the regulatory agencies don't have the expertise either. It is almost all political in every country where I have ever lived, and most EU tech regulations is also absolute garbage.

dpierce9 3y ago

Independent agencies are completely accountable to congress. The idea that they are unaccountable is nonsense. They can only ever do things in the bounds of what congress has said they can do. Congress can change what is allowed at any time. Your proposal is to give congress the authority to write regulations without independent agencies. I got news for you, congress already has that power! They created the agencies because they recognized their limitations when it comes to creating regulations that require technical expertise and/or detailed particulars. Congress can also pass a law nullifying ANY existing agency regulations or, in the extreme, dissolving the agency. If a regulatory agency interprets a law one way, congress can pass a law saying that isn’t what we meant, stop doing that, do it this way instead. This is perfect accountability. If congress can’t do those things, how do you expect them to write effective regulation? What more do you want?

Spivak 3y ago
It might be perfect accountability [1] but under this supreme court it might be found unconstitutional. It's not actually clear whether congress is allowed delegate their power to another branch of government. In fact if you take the constitution in context with the British law it was inspired by it's explicitly prohibited. It's already something that has been legally contentious, overturning it has textualist support, and the textualists justices are also broadly Republican who want a weakened federal government. [1] I mean not really perfect since they have to pass legislation to make those changes and it's easier to block legislation than to pass it. So a minority party in congress with presidential support can (and has) wielded undue legislative power.
- golemotron 3y ago
  > In fact if you take the constitution in context with the British law it was inspired by it's explicitly prohibited. Can you say more about this? It sounds very interesting.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference In Chevron, the Supreme Court set forth a legal test as to when the court should defer to the agency’s answer or interpretation, holding that such judicial deference is appropriate where the agency’s answer was not unreasonable, so long as Congress had not spoken directly to the precise issue at question. This is the SCOTUS ruling that gave administration so much power in 1984, so it's relatively new. The validity of it is currently being heard in: https://cooleypubco.com/2023/05/11/chevron-deference-case-fishing/ https://cooleypubco.com/2023/05/11/chevron-deference-case-fi... I hope it goes away.