There’s a new bill in town aiming to shine a light on the murkier corners of government rulemaking. Introduced in the Senate by a coalition led by Senator Warren, the bill mandates that anyone submitting a study or research to support or oppose a proposed rule must disclose who paid for it, how much was paid, and who reviewed it. Think vested interests playing puppet master—this bill snips the strings.
Additionally, if an agency submits changes to a proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (a mouthful, right?), they must disclose these modifications publicly. No more sneaky last-minute changes that cater to special interests without public awareness.
Let’s discuss the potential impacts. For the average citizen, this could mean more genuine and unbiased regulations, offering greater protection against harmful corporate practices. For corporations, there’s a potential negative impact: they’ll no longer be able to subtly influence rules without public scrutiny. But for those interested in fair play, this isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.
This bill takes aim at long-standing complaints that regulatory actions underestimate public health benefits and overhype industry costs. By requiring agencies to consider the broader social and economic ramifications genuinely—and to ensure equity—the bill seeks to balance the scales of justice and fairness a bit more evenly.
One particularly noteworthy provision is the creation of the “Office of the Public Advocate” within the Office of Management and Budget. This office isn’t just a ceremonial figurehead but a true champion of public participation. Tasks range from helping individuals engage in the rulemaking process to conducting social equity assessments to ensure that new rules don’t disproportionately affect marginalized groups. The National Public Advocate, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, will lead this charge.
Funding for these initiatives? Well, this isn’t explicitly detailed in the text. Actual implementation would likely require budgetary allocations, but the benefits of preventing corporate overreach and ensuring equitable policymaking could well justify the expenditures.
The bill also looks to speed up the rulemaking process, holding agencies accountable for delays. Rules can’t be left hanging indefinitely, and if a rule is disapproved, the bill allows it to be reinstated either within a year or following normal rulemaking procedures afterward. It’s legislative purgatory with an expiration date.
For various organizations and industry groups, this could mean tighter scrutiny and reduced influence behind the scenes. Government agencies would face a significant shift in their operational transparency, potentially leading to a culture change within regulatory bodies.
The broader debate here aligns with the timeless struggle between public interest and corporate power. By tilting the balance toward transparency and public health, the bill looks to reshape how rules impacting millions are crafted and implemented, aspiring for a more democratic and less corporatized government.
What happens next? The bill is now with the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. If it passes there, it’ll move forward in the legislative marathon, potentially reaching a full Senate vote. A House version would need consideration, and then the two would have to reconcile any differences. If it crosses all these hurdles, it lands on the President’s desk for a signature.
In sum, this bill is about ensuring that rules governing public life aren’t covertly orchestrated by the highest bidders. It’s a step towards turning the oft-opaque process of rulemaking into a transparent, public-focused endeavor, ensuring our democracy truly serves its people first. And in the era of heightened skepticism towards institutions, this could be a clarion call for more accountability and citizen empowerment.
Source:
Bill 118s4749is
