I was doing some quick research on the Corker-Hoeven amendment when I came across this
National Review article. The author's main criticism with the amendment in question wasn't so much its substance, but rather the voluminosity of the amendment itself, which he contends prevents the public, let alone legislators, from understanding what it entails. He goes on to cite three reasons for why this might be the case.
Personally, I'm a little conflicted. Obviously, politicians cannot be expected to balance reading every bill they vote on with their other daily affairs, but I have a hunch that if the bills were marginally shorter and business ran a bit slower, we'd see at least a modest reduction in the regulatory capture and corruption that normally occurs in Washington. The downside I see to this, is that shorter bills that "anyone can understand" may invite broader interpretations, thus making legislation more loophole-filled and exploitable to people, especially to the very wealthy and folks who are trained to manipulate legislation to suit their selfish interests.
Thoughts and opinions?
