Legislation

One of the unexpected consequences of operating a public chartered school is it has turned me into a “special interest group.” Certain pieces of legislation effect me very directly and so I have an interest in knowing what is happening and usually a preference as to how this issue should be resolved. I read the specific language of a bill and see how the wording of a specific sentence might only make the matter worse. I think that is one of the differences between interest groups and citizens. Citizens will express their opinion in favor or opposition of legislation. Interest groups will express their opinion on specific wording within the legislation.

This new position has deepened my understanding of the legislative process. First, it has made me aware that the job of a law is to draw a specific line within our society. One side of the line is legal or eligible; the other side is illegal or ineligible. What makes this very hard is there are at least two groups very interested in having that line drawn as far away from them as possible. One group is the entrepreneurs, people who want the chance to create wonderful things, people who are guided by a moral compass that will guide them through complex terrain better than any law. The second group is the scoundrels, people who want the most territory available for ripping off the culture without getting caught, who lack a compass and whose motivations need external constraints to prevent harm. It is very hard to draw the line to rein in the scoundrels without also burdening the entrepreneurs. This has taught me compassion for the job of a legislator.

I’ve also learned it is almost impossible to actually draw that line. To use the metaphor of a mountain ridge, it is easy to look at the ridge and see the ridge line and know which slope is on which side of the line. But if one were to walk the ridge line, trying to paint the precise line, the line would drop down between rocks and become fractally long. Drawing such a line would bog the legislative process in minutiae; very few laws could ever be completed. And so the legislature creates a bureaucracy whose job is to create the final regulations and adjust the line to fit the legislature’s intent as new experiences arise. The bureaucracy is much maligned but its reason for being is absolutely essential if the legislative process is to move forward.

I’ve also learned that lobbyists have an important and legitimate job to play in the legislative process. There are so many details to be considered when trying to draw the line as precisely as possible. If you need to vote on hundreds of bills and help draft 10 or 20 bills, you just don’t have the time to master all the implications of the law. The people who understand the implications of a proposed law better than anyone else are the people it’s going to effect. And a legislator has a legitimate desire to hear from those people to help make sure the legislation has the intended effect and not some unanticipated consequences.

Part of me resists this awareness. It is easier to simply condemn lobbyists en masse. But this relates back to scientific precision and demagoguery. Political problems don’t lie with the existence of lobbyists per se. One must look more precisely at a deeper level than that.