New technology advancements make once very well understood laws, now ambiguous.
Take AI as an example. How many laws have been written over the past few decades that could not have predicted AI use cases or its application.
As opposed to just creating a new "Federal Department of AI" that has broad powers to regulate AI however its unelected administrators see fit.
~50 years ago, laws were written that stated "all communication companies are consider utilities and as such, all utilities should have common access to 'telephone' poles for use to lay down cable" (I'm paraphrasing).
Up to this point, "communication" just means copper lines for telephone (voice).
Then, in the 1980s - the Internet launched.
New companies are now wanting to lay down Fiber optic cables to use for the Internet, and they want the same "common access" to these telephone poles.
But it's ambiguous, what is a "communication company".
This was well understand in the 60s and 70s to mean telco ... but should that definition now be expanded?
So an agency comes in, and say "yes, fiber is consider communication - fiber companies get access to telephone pols to lay fiber down".
When this law was originally written, it's was clear. But then new technology challenged what the meaning & intent of the law meant.
That is a delightfully optimistic name for 'corporate lobbyists.'
I work in the dietary supplements industry, and while people love to call the space unregulated, it's moreso that regulations remain unenforced. So much so that companies often have to ask the FDA for clarification around ambiguous regulations. And the FDA is often keen on not responding. You often find out because the FDA's decided to enforce a rule, one that the industry will have asked for clarification about countless times beforehand.
If regulatory agencies have ample opportunity to clarify ambiguous regulations, they should be doing so. They should not leave it ambiguous until somebody gets hit with a fine. That does not serve public interest.
"No, our compound does not pollute the water."
"It's arsenic with an extra carbon molecule, making it more poisonous!"
"But it's not covered in the law, so it's not a pollutant."
I guess the main concern would be congress being overly "politicized" (especially right now) and so things would be a bit slower to take effect if everything that pops up becomes a partisan talking point.
But government agencies are also pretty "politicized" too, with agency policy directions flip flopping based on who wins presidential and/or midterm elections.
Maybe I'm too optimistic that this could be a forcing function for people to elect more reasonable people.
At least there's some delay, and all current agency rulings will remain in place until challenged, and even then stand somewhat decent odds of remaining in effect. Maybe it'll be a brexit-like situation where people start to realize it was maybe a step too far, and a more well-defined and robust version of chevron will eventually return? Who knows
Bringing in the agencies will not change the scope of the problem.
And the real issue, IMO, is that while we're waiting (either on congress or the courts) companies can get away with not following regulations which are currently being questioned (via injunctions granted by politicized judges).
Judges too are unelected and selected by politicians. And they don't have to worry nearly as much about their job, which creates its own issues. There's a reason term limits exist.