… or the lawmakers could (gasp!) do their damn jobs themselves and do their own research instead of relying on moneyed interests.
For example could you suggest the correct law for dealing with the environmental impact of a new building? If not where would you get the information from?
Lawmakers do not have time to become experts in everything they deal with.
Just being briefed on an issue from both sides isn’t sufficient, they could both be wrong.
With what money?
Moreover, should a lawmaker be able to spend as much money as they want on "research"? Oh hey, look at that, turns out this research firm that employs my son is the perfect firm for this topic!
The government entity that makes all the laws and decides how the money is spent, can’t allocate funds for their core purpose?
Individual lawmakers may not want to, but they can if they wish to.
There are already government departments that can be used and believe it or not, there are actually people who can write public tenders without undue favoritism.
A single lawmaker should obviously not have an unlimited budget, but the legislature as a whole should have access to sufficient funds to make laws fit for purpose.
Nowhere have I suggested that you have to trust Comcast - yes they can brief but so should the opposition. It is then up to the lawmaker to some compromise between the briefs.
Nowhere have I suggested that you have to trust Comcast - yes they can brief but so should the opposition. It is then up to the lawmaker to some compromise between the briefs.
Actually this is how most management decisions are made. Other people brief the decision maker and the decision maker then makes choices between the,m. The decision maker is only an expert in decision making and not necessarily the details.
There will be exceptions for many readers of this board as the decision make acts more like a dictator as they are an expert in the necessary field.
A more pertinent example would be encryption. It is only through extensive industry lobbying that lawmakers have not mandated backdoors yet.
Every single interest is moneyed. Ultimately it's still a democracy and the lawmaker's job is to get votes, not run a multi-discipline research team.
Should we roll back every traffic law, consumer protection, safety standard, science funding, civic policing, or national defense law ever written?
Digressions aside, what value is there in allowing an uninformed person to make impactful decisions on complex matters?
Yes, all of the time. My entire life is making uninformed decisions. I am not a chef - I read reviews of restaurants. I am not a mechanic, I ask my mechanic for car advice. I am not a doctor, I pay them to tell me what's wrong and what treatments to take. Seeking out expertise is a paragon of making wise choices.
2. Seeking out expertise is a paragon of making wise choices. Seeking out moneyed interests is not.
If you were to pass legislation about crash safety for cars, would you not allow input from anyone who knows how cars are manufactured?
Obviously interested parties as well as the general public should be allowed input to the legislative process. However, input should not be solely or even primarily be sought from moneyed interests. The legislature has entire government departments at their disposal and should if need be commission their own research.
Are you trolling or is this a serious position?