5 ms·

Congressional leaders fight against posting bills online

28 points by miked 17y ago

fnid 17y ago
The only shocking thing: Nearly every Republican has signed on, but the Democratic leadership is unwilling to cede control over when bills are brought to the floor for votes and are discouraging their rank and file from signing the petition. The more I follow politics, the more I realize how similar the republicans and democrats are. Their behavior flips with power. If GWB was in office, it would be have been the democrats supporting the bill. I wonder really, why didn't the democrats support this? Would the republicans have supported such a measure for the Patriot Act? Why not require this for every bill? Why do the Republicans only want it on this bill?
- ckinnan 17y ago
  While true that disclosure aids the minority party, and both sides pay some degree of lip service to the issue of transparency, it is still important for American democracy that our political leaders make bills available to the full Congress and to the public for at least 72 hours before a vote.
- tptacek 17y ago
  When Bush was in office, it was the Dems, including Obama, making similar complaints.
DanielStraight 17y ago
72 hours even sounds like too little time.
- hughprime 17y ago
  I agree. How about six months? All the major issues have been festering for years, what's an extra six months of delay? Remember, the government can't build a new road without three years of planning, community consultation, environmental impact statements, mandatory waiting periods, careful negotiation with all stakeholders, and whatever other bureaucracy might crop up along the way. But when the government wants to pass a bill to spend a trillion bucks or fundamentally change the nature of the economy, they seem to think that about twelve hours is the ideal length of time to spend debating it.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    72 hours? Six months? How about a year? What we need is a better process for informing people about the issues involved in legislation. But we don't run congress by referenda, and whether or not legislators "read" bills is irrelevant: they're voting based on political calculation and personal principles, and nothing is going to change that.
    - lionhearted 17y ago
      > ...and whether or not legislators "read" bills is irrelevant: they're voting based on political calculation and personal principles, and nothing is going to change that. I think we should try change it. It's a horrible state of affairs.
      - tptacek 17y ago
        You change it by voting in better legislators. Regardless, the idea that every voter on every piece of legislation is going to be conversant with every line in that legislation seems unrealistic.
        stavrianos 17y ago
        It would absolutely be realistic if the legislation were of a sane length. If a bill can't be read and understood within an hour, it's probably too big for anyone to properly understand it at all, and it should be disallowed on principle.
        tptacek 17y ago
        This all seems to devolve to libertarianism --- "the bills are complicated because regulation is complicated", "no, regulation is only complicated because we over-regulate", and on and on until we hit the point where we say the free market will take care of PCBs in the watershed. I'm fine with the fact that Dick Durbin isn't doing line-by-line review of the health care reform bill, and with the idea that one party is lining up behind one set of experts and interests, and the other is lining up behind another one. Dick Durbin would do a crappy job of making good judgements about health care. Replace him with someone who's awesome at health care, and now you have someone who does a crappy job with defense contracts.
tptacek 17y ago
Looks like a misleading headline. This isn't about posting bills online; online bills is a canard being used to promote a 72-hour waiting period on bills. There are arguments for or against the 72-hour waiting period (the GOP proposal, like similar arguments made during the Bush presidency by Dems, is crafted to increase the ability of the minority to delay action by the majority; it isn't simply a "good-governance" measure). But they have little directly to do with whether bills can be posted online.
chasingsparks 17y ago
While I support a 72-hour public review period, I think there are ways to exploit public interest that would render it less effective. However, a 72-hour review period coupled with rules against omnibus laws would be very efficient (IMO). The laws that reach the floor would be very specific. Congressional records could not be obfuscated with "well I wanted this, so I compromised and voted for that as well". Although...I think congress would still find a way around such rules.
kelnos 17y ago
"For the majority party, legislative timing plays a big role in whether a bill will pass because support can be fleeting." Perhaps your bill doesn't deserve to pass if you can't even keep your supporters on your side for more than 12 hours or so...

28 points by miked 17y ago

fnid 17y ago

The only shocking thing: Nearly every Republican has signed on, but the Democratic leadership is unwilling to cede control over when bills are brought to the floor for votes and are discouraging their rank and file from signing the petition. The more I follow politics, the more I realize how similar the republicans and democrats are. Their behavior flips with power. If GWB was in office, it would be have been the democrats supporting the bill. I wonder really, why didn't the democrats support this? Would the republicans have supported such a measure for the Patriot Act? Why not require this for every bill? Why do the Republicans only want it on this bill?

ckinnan 17y ago
While true that disclosure aids the minority party, and both sides pay some degree of lip service to the issue of transparency, it is still important for American democracy that our political leaders make bills available to the full Congress and to the public for at least 72 hours before a vote.
tptacek 17y ago
When Bush was in office, it was the Dems, including Obama, making similar complaints.

DanielStraight 17y ago

72 hours even sounds like too little time.

hughprime 17y ago
I agree. How about six months? All the major issues have been festering for years, what's an extra six months of delay? Remember, the government can't build a new road without three years of planning, community consultation, environmental impact statements, mandatory waiting periods, careful negotiation with all stakeholders, and whatever other bureaucracy might crop up along the way. But when the government wants to pass a bill to spend a trillion bucks or fundamentally change the nature of the economy, they seem to think that about twelve hours is the ideal length of time to spend debating it.
- tptacek 17y ago
  72 hours? Six months? How about a year? What we need is a better process for informing people about the issues involved in legislation. But we don't run congress by referenda, and whether or not legislators "read" bills is irrelevant: they're voting based on political calculation and personal principles, and nothing is going to change that.
  - lionhearted 17y ago
    > ...and whether or not legislators "read" bills is irrelevant: they're voting based on political calculation and personal principles, and nothing is going to change that. I think we should try change it. It's a horrible state of affairs.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      You change it by voting in better legislators. Regardless, the idea that every voter on every piece of legislation is going to be conversant with every line in that legislation seems unrealistic.
      - stavrianos 17y ago
        It would absolutely be realistic if the legislation were of a sane length. If a bill can't be read and understood within an hour, it's probably too big for anyone to properly understand it at all, and it should be disallowed on principle.
        tptacek 17y ago
        This all seems to devolve to libertarianism --- "the bills are complicated because regulation is complicated", "no, regulation is only complicated because we over-regulate", and on and on until we hit the point where we say the free market will take care of PCBs in the watershed. I'm fine with the fact that Dick Durbin isn't doing line-by-line review of the health care reform bill, and with the idea that one party is lining up behind one set of experts and interests, and the other is lining up behind another one. Dick Durbin would do a crappy job of making good judgements about health care. Replace him with someone who's awesome at health care, and now you have someone who does a crappy job with defense contracts.

tptacek 17y ago

Looks like a misleading headline. This isn't about posting bills online; online bills is a canard being used to promote a 72-hour waiting period on bills. There are arguments for or against the 72-hour waiting period (the GOP proposal, like similar arguments made during the Bush presidency by Dems, is crafted to increase the ability of the minority to delay action by the majority; it isn't simply a "good-governance" measure). But they have little directly to do with whether bills can be posted online.

chasingsparks 17y ago

While I support a 72-hour public review period, I think there are ways to exploit public interest that would render it less effective. However, a 72-hour review period coupled with rules against omnibus laws would be very efficient (IMO). The laws that reach the floor would be very specific. Congressional records could not be obfuscated with "well I wanted this, so I compromised and voted for that as well". Although...I think congress would still find a way around such rules.

kelnos 17y ago

"For the majority party, legislative timing plays a big role in whether a bill will pass because support can be fleeting." Perhaps your bill doesn't deserve to pass if you can't even keep your supporters on your side for more than 12 hours or so...