General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsText-mining journalists find that lawmakers introduced 10,000 bills that were copypasted from lobbyi
For two years, researchers from USA Today, The Arizona Republic and the Center for Public Integrity have been ingesting the bills introduced in all 50 state legislatures, yielding a corpus of more than 1,000,000 bills, and then consumed months of computer time on a large cluster, comparing these bills to "model legislation" promoted by lobbyists, using a text-mining engine that could identify paraphrases, synonyms, and other techniques used to file the serial numbers off of these bills.
They found that more than 10,000 bills that were notionally authored by elected lawmakers drawing a salary at public expenses were actually authored by lobbyists; more than 2,100 of these bills became law. These bills are a wishlist of special-interest legislative favors: limits on your ability to sue a company that injures you, limits on your right to protest, limits on your right to abortion.
Many of the lawmakers who signed onto these bills as cosponsors say they had no idea they were supporting "copycat" legislation. Though copycat bills are sometimes right wing, sometimes left wing, and sometimes about enriching a specific industry, the most common political valence of the bills is right wing, and familiar names like ALEC (previously) lead the charge.
[link:https://boingboing.net/2019/04/11/asbestos-transparency-act.html|
irisblue
(33,023 posts)I first heard about ALEC on Rachels' show, in 2009(?).
That legislative initiative led to John Kasichs' trying to stop public unions in Ohio. His law was overturned by a large margin. Walker of Wisconsin was a product of that group as well.
SWBTATTReg
(22,166 posts)think that good bills are generally written and created by those who really want good products for their voters without an 'ALEC' doing the grunt work...and bad bills are readily identified as being 'bad' bills rather quickly. I would hope...
hedda_foil
(16,375 posts)If it's a cause that's important to you, they're doing the grunt work of writing policy papers and lobbying (through their 501C4 branch) Congresscritters for you. It's their work in many cases that starts the process because they're the experts in their fields.
SWBTATTReg
(22,166 posts)better
(884 posts)One thing that has long bothered me is that our lawmakers often legislate things about which their knowledge is woefully inadequate, and quite obviously so to any who actually do know about the subject. On the left, gun laws are where I have seen this most frequently. Ironically, it was Trump who finally enacted a gun reform that actually does make sense, when he banned bump stocks. Such a ban has support even among sane gun owners for the simple reason that it regulates one and only one thing, and that thing actually does matter.
I would like to see the lawmakers on our side make a more serious effort to be adequately and properly informed on the subject matter they seek to regulate, but I don't want to see them just adopt language provided to them by interest groups, even if they are ideologically aligned with the left. I would rather they invest the effort to actually understand the practical impact of the language they support, as well as why it will have that impact in practicality. To rely on model legislation is to shirk responsibility to an extent, in my opinion, and exposes lawmakers to the risk of being misled as a product of ignorance.
SWBTATTReg
(22,166 posts)malaise
(269,157 posts)Rec