Friday, July 16, 2004
Fear And Loathing In Congress
My personal congresscritter is Marty Meehan (D - MA, 5th District). I think he does a pretty good job, overall, and I expect he'll be running for John Kerry's senate seat when Team Democrat storms the White House this Fall.
Marty has introduced a bill, the bitterly ironic "Democracy In Congress Act Of 2004," which would temper some of the more shameless tyranny we've witnessed from the Republicans that control Congress. (rabid lefty endorsement here.) You don't need a degree in political science to realize that this bill is never going to see the light of day. Yet one of its provisions intrigues me.
One of the reforms included would require that a bill be publicly available online for at least 3 days prior to coming up for a vote. I ask you: Is that not perfectly reasonable? Why aren't we already doing that? What argument could you possibly make against such a requirement?
The reason Congress doesn't do it, and the reason they will continue to not do it, is simple. They fear us, and they fear democracy. Yeah, I know. It sounds like The Big Conspiracy, but it's true. Whether it's Republicans or Democrats or General Motors or Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the primary instinct of a powerful organization is self-preservation.
Posting bills online before a vote translates into a loss of power. Many bills pass because of rushed votes and sleepy legislators who haven't even read the bill on the floor. Can you imagine what might happen if the press and the public had 3 days to read things? The party running the vote gets exposed to sunlight, widely regarded as a good disinfectant. (Napalm is better.)
So, Congress will post bills online when the (perceived) consequences of NOT doing it outweigh the (perceived) consequences of doing it. In other words, when people get angry and demand it. In other other words, when the polls and strategists tell them to.
In other other other words, it's all politics. Here's Marty talking up his bill in The Boston Globe:
Curbing GOP's iron rule in Congress
Marty has introduced a bill, the bitterly ironic "Democracy In Congress Act Of 2004," which would temper some of the more shameless tyranny we've witnessed from the Republicans that control Congress. (rabid lefty endorsement here.) You don't need a degree in political science to realize that this bill is never going to see the light of day. Yet one of its provisions intrigues me.
One of the reforms included would require that a bill be publicly available online for at least 3 days prior to coming up for a vote. I ask you: Is that not perfectly reasonable? Why aren't we already doing that? What argument could you possibly make against such a requirement?
The reason Congress doesn't do it, and the reason they will continue to not do it, is simple. They fear us, and they fear democracy. Yeah, I know. It sounds like The Big Conspiracy, but it's true. Whether it's Republicans or Democrats or General Motors or Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the primary instinct of a powerful organization is self-preservation.
Posting bills online before a vote translates into a loss of power. Many bills pass because of rushed votes and sleepy legislators who haven't even read the bill on the floor. Can you imagine what might happen if the press and the public had 3 days to read things? The party running the vote gets exposed to sunlight, widely regarded as a good disinfectant. (Napalm is better.)
So, Congress will post bills online when the (perceived) consequences of NOT doing it outweigh the (perceived) consequences of doing it. In other words, when people get angry and demand it. In other other words, when the polls and strategists tell them to.
In other other other words, it's all politics. Here's Marty talking up his bill in The Boston Globe:
Curbing GOP's iron rule in Congress
